Actually, many phones (not sure about yours) probably have a video card that's more than good enough to run Deus Ex. It's the CPU architecture that'd most likely be a problem.
Being a programmer will be a totally safe field -- it's not like people in India will suddenly all get computers and start coding.
Not totally safe, but companies are starting to figure out that you get what you pay for, and demand is steadily increasing, particularly for people with actual comp sci degrees.
I'll second that. In fact, I have worked in a place which had precisely the effect he's talking about -- we had a few short meetings, and a lot of discussions via email, version control logs, etc.
The miss was "shared screens" -- no idea what he's talking about.
Value itself is an illusion, other than what value we give something. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
So if most of the world agrees that these numbers have value, they do, whether or not the assets are physical. Oh yes, things can be real without being physical -- or how would you feel if everything you ever created inside a computer was wiped out in a hard disk crash?
Unless you're going to claim that all currency is an illusion, you're again going to have to provide a lot more justification than just flippantly discarding them. And if you are going to claim that all currency is only the illusion of value, that has its own problems.
Quick question: Where'd you buy that computer? Wasn't with Newegg, by any chance, was it? They clearly use MS products at least for the frontend (ASP), but that's really no guarantee one way or the other.
The only way you could not be that "naive" is if you simply don't use your credit card online, in which case, how do you know what your bank is using?
Many large companies use Microsoft's Dynamics GP product for accounting, and many of these companies use it to store credit card numbers for billing customers.
Sorry, if you're actually going to say that a lot of consumer credit cards aren't valuable or important, you're going to have to provide just a teensy bit more justification.
Well, that was fast. You're seriously going to compare drawing a few cartoons with signing orders for genocide?
Alright, first of all, examples of speech which is not protected are things like orders and threats. Actually telling someone to do something from a position of authority counts as an action, as does paying someone to do something (hiring a hit man). And while I'm not sure I agree with this part, death threats are not protected speech in the US.
The significant difference here is whether the speech has force and authority behind it. If you have a gun to my head, and you demand that I hand over my wallet, I can still refuse, but it would be stupid of me to do so. Make that demand without the force, and I can simply ignore you.
Even this doesn't immediately place all blame on Hitler. If the people he was speaking to were a bit more cautious and discriminating, there would have been no Nazi party, and he would have been dismissed as a lunatic. Indeed, the Nuremberg trials held that the Superior Orders defense is not sufficient -- in other words, while Hitler may have been guilty of giving orders, that doesn't mean every member of the Nazi party was simply, innocently following those orders.
Furthermore, Hitler had no power except that which people gave him. Had cooler heads prevailed early on, there would have been no Nazi party, and he would have been dismissed as a raving lunatic. It's also worth mentioning that there are still neo-Nazis in the US, and they're still allowed to freely express themselves, so long as it's merely expression -- rant all you want, but without an army to back it up, it's just ranting.
Let's tie this back to what I actually said:
No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to.
But Hitler had a lot more than mere words, didn't he? And he was doing a lot more than simply expressing himself -- he was giving orders and making threats, two things which are not considered protected speech.
Now, if Hitler was dismissed as a lunatic, and the Nazi party was never formed, does that make Hitler a good person? Of course not. The fact that I think certain speech should be protected does not mean I agree with that speech or think it's moral.
But that is the real difference here, isn't it? There may be many people in the US who think this "Draw Mohammed day" thing is immoral. The execs at Facebook itself might even think that. But no one is going to block that speech merely because they think it's immoral. Pakistan did.
He's using derogatory language in the place of reasoned argument.
In addition to, I would say. Even what you quoted had that much:
The alterations and fallacies made by these extremist conservatives are offensive to our communities and inaccurate of our nation's diverse history.
It also highlights an important point:
this discussion should be civil.
Sorry, but the proposed changes are in no way civil. Anyone seriously proposing that McCarthy was right, or that Martin Luther King was a Black Panther, or that Moses had a greater influence on the Constitution than Tomas fucking Jefferson, has long since forfeit any pretense they had of a civil discussion.
If you value free speech so much, why not also draw swastikas and offensive cartoons of Jesus?
Oh, we do, sometimes. But this is specifically a retaliation to the south park incident.
South park has been going for more than a decade, and no religion or organization of the thousands they offended ever sent them death threats, other than Islam. Only Muslims actually managed to get an episode censored and then removed from the website, demonstrating sheer cowardice on the part of the network.
Not particularly. I value freedom of speech no matter what the country, and have no particular loyalty to my own.
But first you are going to have to explain how not drawing Mohammed and publishing it on the internet is a threat to any of your freedoms or beliefs.
That depends very much on the reason why not. If we don't do so simply because we were threatened, that is a threat.
Look up the history of the KKK here. There was a landmark case in which they were allowed to have their own local public access TV show. Hate speech may be reprehensible, but you are not allowed to censor it.
Where we draw the line is actions. The KKK
You say yourself that it is to "demonstrate our ideals and our courage". Who is it supposed to be "demonstrating" to, if not Muslims?
Viacom, for one -- the company which recently caved to Muslim death threats and self-censored out of cowardice.
Why should Muslims have to 'prove' anything?
Because when moderate Muslims remain silent, the extreme voices speak for you, and they are increasingly barbaric and intolerant. Prove that the average Muslim is more like this guy and less like this guy.
Who are these people who have decided that they determine who and what enters the 'modern world' and what is permissible there?
The people who built it.
You see, it's not only ideas and discourse that benefit from a lack of censorship, but scientific progress as well. The computer you are using is a product of those values -- of scientific inquiry and the free exchange of speech, thought, and ideas.
Yeah, cos drawing rude pictures of people and passing them around is very mature and grown up.
Much more so than censoring and blowing shit up, yes.
If we're lucky this will progress to calling each other poopy-pants and arguments about who started it.
None of which results in people dying, or in multiple networks being blocked to silence the voices of a minority.
This is trolling. Trolling is not free speech because it's sole purpose is to offend.
Sorry, yes, trolling is free speech. Again, freedom of speech is worthless unless it is all speech, even speech you personally find offensive.
When King of Kings came out the studio had to get 'permission' from the Vatican.
Have to or chose to? Was the government actually going to break their doors down if they didn't?
You don't know what 'mainstream' means.
I do know that mainstream movies tend to have lots of funding, and things without funding tend not to be able to become mainstream movies, with very few exceptions. Do you dispute any of those points?
With the exception of the South Park movie, those are all very low distribution films.
So what? Are you saying this Facebook group isn't?
Yes, they were just a few drawings...that were published to billions of people.
They were published on Facebook. Billions of people chose to visit them. I don't recall any reports of anyone actually printing copies and delivering it to your door.
You don't know what the qualifier 'prone to' mean.
you seem to provide the counterpoint to your own post within the same sentence, by listing 2 places where it probably would happen...
Which are also places I don't consider to be part of the free world, particularly so long as they have anti-blasphemy laws.
Want me to list dozens of places it would very likely not happen? Like France, the UK, the US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Spain, Germany... Do I really have to spell it out for you?
You're looking at this from the point of "those Muslims are trying to tell us what we can say".
Are you telling me that's not what's happening?
If you seek to understand the average Muslim perspective though, conduct the following though experiment: that you are black and some is chanting "nigger nigger nigger nigger" in your face...
What about this concept is so hard for you to get?
Yes, people have the right to do that in the free world. Freedom of speech is worthless unless it also means freedom to say things you disagree with.
Except, of course, they don't have the right to do it right in your face. Which this isn't. No one is forcing you to go to that particular Facebook page out of thousands -- but you are drawing far more attention to it than it deserves by blocking all of Facebook because of this one bit that's offensive.
Don't get mad, you don't have to right to tell people what they can say.
Those are two separate issues.
First, it's entirely up to you whether or not you take offense. Take the "nigger" situation -- you could get angry, or you could feel sorry for the poor troll who has nothing better to do than harass you, or you could ignore them altogether.
Second, there's nothing wrong with taking offense, or telling people what you think they should say. Where it crosses the line is when you start actually preventing them from saying it at all (by censoring an entire network because of a few offensive posts), or when you respond to someone's mere expression with violence, or threats of violence.
I don't see why that is such a hard concept to get. Hate speech is legal, and the best way to deal with it is to counter with calm, rational discourse, or to ignore it altogether and thus deny its power. Death threats are not legal, nor should they be tolerated, and actions like censorship are in an entirely different category.
It's not an analogy. I'm saying this is what it *feels* like for the average Muslim. Note I say average Muslim, not extremist.
Moreover, I'm not sure whether it should feel that way at all, if you understand your own religion. Think about it: Why did Mohammed forbid depictions of himself? To prevent just what happens every time you follow his name with "Peace Be Upon Him" -- to prevent himself (or any other prophet) from being deified, from being worshiped over Allah. Merely drawing the prophet should be no more blasphemous to you than it would be to draw Jesus Christ, who, as I understand, is also held to be a prophet.
This issue has the potential to radicalize more people than Al-Qaeda ever dreamed of.
No, they do that themselves. Mere expression cannot make you hate unless you allow it to.
I'm not asking you to care, I'm asking you to understand.
Well, I am asking you to care. Watch the DawahFilms video I linked to. Don't just shrug this off, use this as an opportunity to prove us embarrassingly wrong, and to set an example to your brothers and sisters about how Islam truly can be a religion of peace.
Or you can be silent, allowing your louder extremists to speak for you. Or you can actually defend censorship and barbarism. Your choice.
I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but this fits the standard pattern of Apple doing exactly as much as they can get away with, and of large corporations in general suddenly growing a conscience when they get some bad PR (and letting said conscience atrophy when the press leaves them alone).
Until recently (less than 50 years ago), Christians perceived depiction of Jesus on Screen to be blasphemous.
Did they kill people who attempted to do so?
And even today, a mainstream film damn well better show Jesus as Anglo.
Or what? It won't get funding, and thus won't be "mainstream"? So what?
If they were to show him as he likely was, olive-skinned with Middle Eastern traits, there would be frickin' riots in from the of the theaters.
Really? I can't imagine that many people would care. Did you see riots about Religulous? Or Letting Go of God? Or The God Who Wasn't There? How about the South Park movie?
With all that actual blasphemy, I wouldn't even expect many angry letters about your imagined blasphemy.
And yet, a few drawings -- not movies, but cheap photoshoppings for the most part -- and we get this.
Remember Islam is, by far, the youngest of the other religions you named (except Mormonism, but that's a Christian sect).
If you are honestly going to count Mormonism as a Christian sect, you may as well count Islam as a Jewish sect. Or even a Christian sect -- they believe Christ was a prophet, just not God, which many Christian sects believed before the Council of Nycaea.
But really, go read about Mormonism. Better yet, watch the South Park episode -- it's pretty accurate, though not complete. If anything, it's a parody of Christianity -- it's no more sane than Scientology.
religions (Christianity included) are prone to extremism.
Spoken like somebody who has the freedom to not give a rat's ass about all fellow humans.
Everyone has that right. That's not what I'm exercising here, though, or why would I champion freedom of speech for everyone, even those I disagree with?
Essentially, some asshole effectively killed the party for everybody in that country,
Essentially? Effectively? That's a lot of weasel words... And which asshole would that be? The guy who spawned the Facebook event, or the asshole who actually blocked it? No one forced them to block Facebook -- they did that on their own. They would've been entirely free to block only parts of Facebook, or to instead launch their own Draw Jesus Day event -- they could've handled it any number of ways other than outright censorship.
To what end? What have they achieved?
Good question.
The event has proved that entire countries are on the run -- censoring just to protect themselves from ideas they don't like.
Or if you mean the asshole who blocked Facebook, well, not much. Those who really want to see it will find ways around, and in the meantime, they've blocked their countrymen from a site which is presumably useful and popular. They also haven't censored the vast majority of the Internet, so one wonders what they hope to accomplish by blocking just this one instance of blasphemy -- there are even Mohammed ASCII-art drawings on Slashdot now.
Do you honestly think they should block Slashdot? Would you honestly blame the ACs for "ruining it" if that happened?
Just because you are free in your country does not mean you have any right in fanning the conflict between the citizens of a country and it's ruling theocracy.
Are you serious?
No one said "Rise up and overthrow your government." Someone posted something on Facebook, and the government chose to block it. The government thus chose to pursue a course of action which might lead to increased tension between it and its citizens.
How is this in any way my fault for speaking my mind half a world away?
And why is it so difficult to wrap your mind around this concept: Words and ideas have only the power you give them. If Islam didn't get its panties in a wad every time someone makes fun of Mo', those words and cartoons would have no power.
Think about it -- you probably felt a bit of anger there at the way I worded the above paragraph. I did that deliberately, to illustrate a point: They're just words. They do not even have the power to make you angry, if you do not allow it.
And I'll present this as evidence that I do care about my fellow humans. I used to be very angry, often. I let my anger control me. I've broken free from that, and I am much better for it. I am happier, healthier, and I make better decisions when I do not let anger guide me. At least right here, in this moment, I am trying to share that with you. I hope you, or someone reading this, is in a position to share that with those who are in a position to change the political situation in Pakistan.
Quite often the same folks who do shit like this, and turn around and claim they're making any kind of contribution to society.
Because clearly, all I do all day is draw Mohammed? Is that really what you think?
I have a summer internship starting soon. In the mean time, I'm preparing to go to a convention, where I'll be speaking about some software I've developed. I'm also learning a martial art, and looking for another to practice over the summer. In the fall, I will be going back to school.
Or is it that you think drawing Mohammed contributes nothing to society? Political cartoons have a long history of contributing to the discussion, and one of our most respected news sources is one w
I don't *believe* in Free Speech because it already exists...
Do I really have to rephrase this?
The idea of freedom of speech is that everyone should have a right to freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is worthless if we accept physical retaliation for that expression. Then it's not much of a right (NSFW), is it?
If I went into the office tomorrow and my boss told me he'd cut my salary by 20%, I'd go and say something to him about it. A consequence of my saying something might mean I lose my job completely...
And your boss very likely has the right to do that.
Muslims do not have the right to kill people. In fact, death threats are one of the few areas of speech which, as far as I can tell, aren't protected.
I think I've said pretty much everything I want to, and I'm not going to dig up all of your responses. Instead, I should remind you: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither."
Think of it as the holodeck of your brain using some spare cycles to make a construct.
You sure your name isn't Bad Analogy Guy?
I suppose a more relevant question is, why Jesus, and in particular, why this absurdly inaccurate version of Jesus?
More importantly, why an imaginary friend instead of a real one? If I ever need help knowing how to not be an asshat, I'd much rather ask a real person than an imaginary friend who might be able to tell me something my subconscious knows.
quite clearly, the Facebook contest was done to *DELIBERATELY* incite religious harassment of Moslems
No, actually, it was done to demonstrate our ideals and our courage. We value freedom of speech at least as much as they value Mohammed, and we are willing to stand up for that belief. We are not willing to let their threats silence us.
I don't see how it's that important to feel the need to launch some kind of protest to force it down the throats of everyone,
How is it being forced down anyone's throat? Unless something very strange is going on, you chose to click on this story. You could've ignored it. Nothing's stopping those Muslims from completely fucking ignoring the entire thing, and in fact, it would be much more in line with the reason behind that particular religious restriction if they did. (You're not supposed to draw Mohammed so that people don't start worshiping Mohammed -- that was never likely in this case, and getting so worked up about it is focusing on the man instead of the deity, which is exactly what that restriction was supposed to prevent in the first place.)
If Muslims want to prove they've grown up and are ready to enter the modern world, they'll ignore this, or respond by drawing Jesus. If they instead censor, riot, and kill, they'll prove they're stuck in the dark ages.
Sorry, but if it was caricatures of disabled people or soldiers or killed in Afghanistan, then everyone would be up-in-arms about it and someone would be offended by it.
Figuratively up-in-arms, not literally. That's the difference.
Oh, and they wouldn't be banned at the ISP level in the US.
I'm all for Free Speech but I'm more for people demonstrating some intelligence & compassion
So you're for free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone? That shows a profound lack of intelligence on your part.
inciting hatred is pathetic!
No, inciting hatred is impossible. No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to. What's pathetic is that mere words and pictures are enough for these people to willingly begin to hate.
We could just as well as said 'draw jesus fucking magdalene' or jesus jacking off cartoon - or the three wise men making out with mary.
Indeed -- but the point here is that if that's what it was, there would be no death threats, riots, or banning of websites from entire countries (except maybe Ireland or Rome).
I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
I don't know that I'd call it a bad thing, but I, personally, tend to respect things which deserve respect, because I, y'know, actually feel respect for them. I don't respect things just to spare someone's feelings.
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is only being done to prove those Muslims who who are offended by it.
Actually, no, it's about freedom of speech, and about proving that chilling effect no longer works when we have the courage to stand up to them. Here's a much better explanation from the guy who started it.
when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it.
Surprised? No, but disappointed as hell. Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
No one should have to suffer a death threat for writing a book, drawing a picture, or saying something you don't like.
Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.
No one's poking anyone. We are provoking, yes, but with words.
And the people we're provoking are humans, which means they're capable of coming up with fair retaliation -- like, say, blaspheming against our respective religions -- instead of killing people.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, many phones (not sure about yours) probably have a video card that's more than good enough to run Deus Ex. It's the CPU architecture that'd most likely be a problem.
Being a programmer will be a totally safe field -- it's not like people in India will suddenly all get computers and start coding.
Not totally safe, but companies are starting to figure out that you get what you pay for, and demand is steadily increasing, particularly for people with actual comp sci degrees.
I'll second that. In fact, I have worked in a place which had precisely the effect he's talking about -- we had a few short meetings, and a lot of discussions via email, version control logs, etc.
The miss was "shared screens" -- no idea what he's talking about.
And what value do assets have?
Value itself is an illusion, other than what value we give something. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
So if most of the world agrees that these numbers have value, they do, whether or not the assets are physical. Oh yes, things can be real without being physical -- or how would you feel if everything you ever created inside a computer was wiped out in a hard disk crash?
Unless you're going to claim that all currency is an illusion, you're again going to have to provide a lot more justification than just flippantly discarding them. And if you are going to claim that all currency is only the illusion of value, that has its own problems.
And what evidence is there of that?
I mean, by now they may well be, but that would be because of this system, so "andnothingofvaluewaslost" still doesn't fit.
Quick question: Where'd you buy that computer? Wasn't with Newegg, by any chance, was it? They clearly use MS products at least for the frontend (ASP), but that's really no guarantee one way or the other.
The only way you could not be that "naive" is if you simply don't use your credit card online, in which case, how do you know what your bank is using?
From TFS:
Many large companies use Microsoft's Dynamics GP product for accounting, and many of these companies use it to store credit card numbers for billing customers.
Sorry, if you're actually going to say that a lot of consumer credit cards aren't valuable or important, you're going to have to provide just a teensy bit more justification.
Well, that was fast. You're seriously going to compare drawing a few cartoons with signing orders for genocide?
Alright, first of all, examples of speech which is not protected are things like orders and threats. Actually telling someone to do something from a position of authority counts as an action, as does paying someone to do something (hiring a hit man). And while I'm not sure I agree with this part, death threats are not protected speech in the US.
The significant difference here is whether the speech has force and authority behind it. If you have a gun to my head, and you demand that I hand over my wallet, I can still refuse, but it would be stupid of me to do so. Make that demand without the force, and I can simply ignore you.
Even this doesn't immediately place all blame on Hitler. If the people he was speaking to were a bit more cautious and discriminating, there would have been no Nazi party, and he would have been dismissed as a lunatic. Indeed, the Nuremberg trials held that the Superior Orders defense is not sufficient -- in other words, while Hitler may have been guilty of giving orders, that doesn't mean every member of the Nazi party was simply, innocently following those orders.
Furthermore, Hitler had no power except that which people gave him. Had cooler heads prevailed early on, there would have been no Nazi party, and he would have been dismissed as a raving lunatic. It's also worth mentioning that there are still neo-Nazis in the US, and they're still allowed to freely express themselves, so long as it's merely expression -- rant all you want, but without an army to back it up, it's just ranting.
Let's tie this back to what I actually said:
No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to.
But Hitler had a lot more than mere words, didn't he? And he was doing a lot more than simply expressing himself -- he was giving orders and making threats, two things which are not considered protected speech.
Now, if Hitler was dismissed as a lunatic, and the Nazi party was never formed, does that make Hitler a good person? Of course not. The fact that I think certain speech should be protected does not mean I agree with that speech or think it's moral.
But that is the real difference here, isn't it? There may be many people in the US who think this "Draw Mohammed day" thing is immoral. The execs at Facebook itself might even think that. But no one is going to block that speech merely because they think it's immoral. Pakistan did.
I realize that's the Christian interpretation. It's certainly not the Islamic interpretation, as far as I can tell.
He's using derogatory language in the place of reasoned argument.
In addition to, I would say. Even what you quoted had that much:
The alterations and fallacies made by these extremist conservatives are offensive to our communities and inaccurate of our nation's diverse history.
It also highlights an important point:
this discussion should be civil.
Sorry, but the proposed changes are in no way civil. Anyone seriously proposing that McCarthy was right, or that Martin Luther King was a Black Panther, or that Moses had a greater influence on the Constitution than Tomas fucking Jefferson, has long since forfeit any pretense they had of a civil discussion.
If you value free speech so much, why not also draw swastikas and offensive cartoons of Jesus?
Oh, we do, sometimes. But this is specifically a retaliation to the south park incident.
South park has been going for more than a decade, and no religion or organization of the thousands they offended ever sent them death threats, other than Islam. Only Muslims actually managed to get an episode censored and then removed from the website, demonstrating sheer cowardice on the part of the network.
All very good and patriotic.
Not particularly. I value freedom of speech no matter what the country, and have no particular loyalty to my own.
But first you are going to have to explain how not drawing Mohammed and publishing it on the internet is a threat to any of your freedoms or beliefs.
That depends very much on the reason why not. If we don't do so simply because we were threatened, that is a threat.
Look up the history of the KKK here. There was a landmark case in which they were allowed to have their own local public access TV show. Hate speech may be reprehensible, but you are not allowed to censor it.
Where we draw the line is actions. The KKK
You say yourself that it is to "demonstrate our ideals and our courage". Who is it supposed to be "demonstrating" to, if not Muslims?
Viacom, for one -- the company which recently caved to Muslim death threats and self-censored out of cowardice.
Why should Muslims have to 'prove' anything?
Because when moderate Muslims remain silent, the extreme voices speak for you, and they are increasingly barbaric and intolerant. Prove that the average Muslim is more like this guy and less like this guy.
Who are these people who have decided that they determine who and what enters the 'modern world' and what is permissible there?
The people who built it.
You see, it's not only ideas and discourse that benefit from a lack of censorship, but scientific progress as well. The computer you are using is a product of those values -- of scientific inquiry and the free exchange of speech, thought, and ideas.
Yeah, cos drawing rude pictures of people and passing them around is very mature and grown up.
Much more so than censoring and blowing shit up, yes.
If we're lucky this will progress to calling each other poopy-pants and arguments about who started it.
None of which results in people dying, or in multiple networks being blocked to silence the voices of a minority.
This is trolling. Trolling is not free speech because it's sole purpose is to offend.
Sorry, yes, trolling is free speech. Again, freedom of speech is worthless unless it is all speech, even speech you personally find offensive.
When King of Kings came out the studio had to get 'permission' from the Vatican.
Have to or chose to? Was the government actually going to break their doors down if they didn't?
You don't know what 'mainstream' means.
I do know that mainstream movies tend to have lots of funding, and things without funding tend not to be able to become mainstream movies, with very few exceptions. Do you dispute any of those points?
With the exception of the South Park movie, those are all very low distribution films.
So what? Are you saying this Facebook group isn't?
Yes, they were just a few drawings...that were published to billions of people.
They were published on Facebook. Billions of people chose to visit them. I don't recall any reports of anyone actually printing copies and delivering it to your door.
You don't know what the qualifier 'prone to' mean.
I do, and I mean exactly what I said.
you seem to provide the counterpoint to your own post within the same sentence, by listing 2 places where it probably would happen...
Which are also places I don't consider to be part of the free world, particularly so long as they have anti-blasphemy laws.
Want me to list dozens of places it would very likely not happen? Like France, the UK, the US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Spain, Germany... Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Miss Hotlinking Error?
You're looking at this from the point of "those Muslims are trying to tell us what we can say".
Are you telling me that's not what's happening?
If you seek to understand the average Muslim perspective though, conduct the following though experiment: that you are black and some is chanting "nigger nigger nigger nigger" in your face...
What about this concept is so hard for you to get?
Yes, people have the right to do that in the free world. Freedom of speech is worthless unless it also means freedom to say things you disagree with.
Except, of course, they don't have the right to do it right in your face. Which this isn't. No one is forcing you to go to that particular Facebook page out of thousands -- but you are drawing far more attention to it than it deserves by blocking all of Facebook because of this one bit that's offensive.
In fact, someone did exactly that on Facebook, and the US hasn't blocked Facebook.
Don't get mad, you don't have to right to tell people what they can say.
Those are two separate issues.
First, it's entirely up to you whether or not you take offense. Take the "nigger" situation -- you could get angry, or you could feel sorry for the poor troll who has nothing better to do than harass you, or you could ignore them altogether.
Second, there's nothing wrong with taking offense, or telling people what you think they should say. Where it crosses the line is when you start actually preventing them from saying it at all (by censoring an entire network because of a few offensive posts), or when you respond to someone's mere expression with violence, or threats of violence.
I don't see why that is such a hard concept to get. Hate speech is legal, and the best way to deal with it is to counter with calm, rational discourse, or to ignore it altogether and thus deny its power. Death threats are not legal, nor should they be tolerated, and actions like censorship are in an entirely different category.
It's not an analogy. I'm saying this is what it *feels* like for the average Muslim. Note I say average Muslim, not extremist.
And here's how one Muslim chose to respond.
Moreover, I'm not sure whether it should feel that way at all, if you understand your own religion. Think about it: Why did Mohammed forbid depictions of himself? To prevent just what happens every time you follow his name with "Peace Be Upon Him" -- to prevent himself (or any other prophet) from being deified, from being worshiped over Allah. Merely drawing the prophet should be no more blasphemous to you than it would be to draw Jesus Christ, who, as I understand, is also held to be a prophet.
This issue has the potential to radicalize more people than Al-Qaeda ever dreamed of.
No, they do that themselves. Mere expression cannot make you hate unless you allow it to.
I'm not asking you to care, I'm asking you to understand.
Well, I am asking you to care. Watch the DawahFilms video I linked to. Don't just shrug this off, use this as an opportunity to prove us embarrassingly wrong, and to set an example to your brothers and sisters about how Islam truly can be a religion of peace.
Or you can be silent, allowing your louder extremists to speak for you. Or you can actually defend censorship and barbarism. Your choice.
I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but this fits the standard pattern of Apple doing exactly as much as they can get away with, and of large corporations in general suddenly growing a conscience when they get some bad PR (and letting said conscience atrophy when the press leaves them alone).
Until recently (less than 50 years ago), Christians perceived depiction of Jesus on Screen to be blasphemous.
Did they kill people who attempted to do so?
And even today, a mainstream film damn well better show Jesus as Anglo.
Or what? It won't get funding, and thus won't be "mainstream"? So what?
If they were to show him as he likely was, olive-skinned with Middle Eastern traits, there would be frickin' riots in from the of the theaters.
Really? I can't imagine that many people would care. Did you see riots about Religulous? Or Letting Go of God? Or The God Who Wasn't There? How about the South Park movie?
With all that actual blasphemy, I wouldn't even expect many angry letters about your imagined blasphemy.
And yet, a few drawings -- not movies, but cheap photoshoppings for the most part -- and we get this.
Remember Islam is, by far, the youngest of the other religions you named (except Mormonism, but that's a Christian sect).
If you are honestly going to count Mormonism as a Christian sect, you may as well count Islam as a Jewish sect. Or even a Christian sect -- they believe Christ was a prophet, just not God, which many Christian sects believed before the Council of Nycaea.
But really, go read about Mormonism. Better yet, watch the South Park episode -- it's pretty accurate, though not complete. If anything, it's a parody of Christianity -- it's no more sane than Scientology.
religions (Christianity included) are prone to extremism.
Fixed that for you.
Spoken like somebody who has the freedom to not give a rat's ass about all fellow humans.
Everyone has that right. That's not what I'm exercising here, though, or why would I champion freedom of speech for everyone, even those I disagree with?
Essentially, some asshole effectively killed the party for everybody in that country,
Essentially? Effectively? That's a lot of weasel words... And which asshole would that be? The guy who spawned the Facebook event, or the asshole who actually blocked it? No one forced them to block Facebook -- they did that on their own. They would've been entirely free to block only parts of Facebook, or to instead launch their own Draw Jesus Day event -- they could've handled it any number of ways other than outright censorship.
To what end? What have they achieved?
Good question.
The event has proved that entire countries are on the run -- censoring just to protect themselves from ideas they don't like.
Or if you mean the asshole who blocked Facebook, well, not much. Those who really want to see it will find ways around, and in the meantime, they've blocked their countrymen from a site which is presumably useful and popular. They also haven't censored the vast majority of the Internet, so one wonders what they hope to accomplish by blocking just this one instance of blasphemy -- there are even Mohammed ASCII-art drawings on Slashdot now.
Do you honestly think they should block Slashdot? Would you honestly blame the ACs for "ruining it" if that happened?
Just because you are free in your country does not mean you have any right in fanning the conflict between the citizens of a country and it's ruling theocracy.
Are you serious?
No one said "Rise up and overthrow your government." Someone posted something on Facebook, and the government chose to block it. The government thus chose to pursue a course of action which might lead to increased tension between it and its citizens.
How is this in any way my fault for speaking my mind half a world away?
And why is it so difficult to wrap your mind around this concept: Words and ideas have only the power you give them. If Islam didn't get its panties in a wad every time someone makes fun of Mo', those words and cartoons would have no power.
Think about it -- you probably felt a bit of anger there at the way I worded the above paragraph. I did that deliberately, to illustrate a point: They're just words. They do not even have the power to make you angry, if you do not allow it.
And I'll present this as evidence that I do care about my fellow humans. I used to be very angry, often. I let my anger control me. I've broken free from that, and I am much better for it. I am happier, healthier, and I make better decisions when I do not let anger guide me. At least right here, in this moment, I am trying to share that with you. I hope you, or someone reading this, is in a position to share that with those who are in a position to change the political situation in Pakistan.
Quite often the same folks who do shit like this, and turn around and claim they're making any kind of contribution to society.
Because clearly, all I do all day is draw Mohammed? Is that really what you think?
I have a summer internship starting soon. In the mean time, I'm preparing to go to a convention, where I'll be speaking about some software I've developed. I'm also learning a martial art, and looking for another to practice over the summer. In the fall, I will be going back to school.
Or is it that you think drawing Mohammed contributes nothing to society? Political cartoons have a long history of contributing to the discussion, and one of our most respected news sources is one w
I don't *believe* in Free Speech because it already exists...
Do I really have to rephrase this?
The idea of freedom of speech is that everyone should have a right to freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is worthless if we accept physical retaliation for that expression. Then it's not much of a right (NSFW), is it?
If I went into the office tomorrow and my boss told me he'd cut my salary by 20%, I'd go and say something to him about it. A consequence of my saying something might mean I lose my job completely...
And your boss very likely has the right to do that.
Muslims do not have the right to kill people. In fact, death threats are one of the few areas of speech which, as far as I can tell, aren't protected.
I think I've said pretty much everything I want to, and I'm not going to dig up all of your responses. Instead, I should remind you: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither."
Having a draw all relgions event would show that no, we are not singling them out for criticism.
Ah, but we are. Again:
Most religions don't have their followers send death threats because of mere blasphemy...
That is why they're the target.
But then, if they bother to look, they'll find other movements against other religions -- for example, Anonymous vs Scientology.
Think of it as the holodeck of your brain using some spare cycles to make a construct.
You sure your name isn't Bad Analogy Guy?
I suppose a more relevant question is, why Jesus, and in particular, why this absurdly inaccurate version of Jesus?
More importantly, why an imaginary friend instead of a real one? If I ever need help knowing how to not be an asshat, I'd much rather ask a real person than an imaginary friend who might be able to tell me something my subconscious knows.
quite clearly, the Facebook contest was done to *DELIBERATELY* incite religious harassment of Moslems
No, actually, it was done to demonstrate our ideals and our courage. We value freedom of speech at least as much as they value Mohammed, and we are willing to stand up for that belief. We are not willing to let their threats silence us.
I don't see how it's that important to feel the need to launch some kind of protest to force it down the throats of everyone,
How is it being forced down anyone's throat? Unless something very strange is going on, you chose to click on this story. You could've ignored it. Nothing's stopping those Muslims from completely fucking ignoring the entire thing, and in fact, it would be much more in line with the reason behind that particular religious restriction if they did. (You're not supposed to draw Mohammed so that people don't start worshiping Mohammed -- that was never likely in this case, and getting so worked up about it is focusing on the man instead of the deity, which is exactly what that restriction was supposed to prevent in the first place.)
If Muslims want to prove they've grown up and are ready to enter the modern world, they'll ignore this, or respond by drawing Jesus. If they instead censor, riot, and kill, they'll prove they're stuck in the dark ages.
Sorry, but if it was caricatures of disabled people or soldiers or killed in Afghanistan, then everyone would be up-in-arms about it and someone would be offended by it.
Figuratively up-in-arms, not literally. That's the difference.
Oh, and they wouldn't be banned at the ISP level in the US.
I'm all for Free Speech but I'm more for people demonstrating some intelligence & compassion
So you're for free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone? That shows a profound lack of intelligence on your part.
inciting hatred is pathetic!
No, inciting hatred is impossible. No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to. What's pathetic is that mere words and pictures are enough for these people to willingly begin to hate.
We could just as well as said 'draw jesus fucking magdalene' or jesus jacking off cartoon - or the three wise men making out with mary.
Indeed -- but the point here is that if that's what it was, there would be no death threats, riots, or banning of websites from entire countries (except maybe Ireland or Rome).
I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
I don't know that I'd call it a bad thing, but I, personally, tend to respect things which deserve respect, because I, y'know, actually feel respect for them. I don't respect things just to spare someone's feelings.
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is only being done to prove those Muslims who who are offended by it.
Actually, no, it's about freedom of speech, and about proving that chilling effect no longer works when we have the courage to stand up to them. Here's a much better explanation from the guy who started it.
when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it.
Surprised? No, but disappointed as hell. Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
No one should have to suffer a death threat for writing a book, drawing a picture, or saying something you don't like.
Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.
No one's poking anyone. We are provoking, yes, but with words.
And the people we're provoking are humans, which means they're capable of coming up with fair retaliation -- like, say, blaspheming against our respective religions -- instead of killing people.