Support NeoGAF

[Laughing Banana]

There's no reason for this magazine to be in those places. The fact that people are still upset after seeing that cover only goes to show that some are practically BEGGING for something to be offended by.

So people are not allowed to be offended anymore in "today's society"--whatever that means--even if they're not resorting to violent acts?

Who gets to decide which content can offend or not then? You?

Getting offended =/= committing violent acts because you're offended. Surely you can see the difference?

 

[Raistlin]

So people are not allowed to be offended anymore in "today's society"--whatever that means--even if they're not resorting to violent acts?

Who gets to decide which content can offend or not then? You?

Getting offended =/= committing violent acts because you're offended. Surely you can see the difference?

People being offending too easily is what this generation is all about

 

[JustenP88]

So people are not allowed to be offended anymore in "today's society"--whatever that means--even if they're not resorting to violent acts?

Who gets to decide which content can offend or not then? You?

Getting offended =/= committing violent acts because you're offended. Surely you can see the difference?

I never said they weren't allowed to be offended. By all means, take offense every time you hear someone sneeze. Just know that you won't be very comfortable as long as you intend on clinging to your delicate sensibilities.

And I didn't say anything about violent acts. Stop trying to tie everything back to that. Being non-violent doesn't exempt you from criticism.

 

[Fj0823]

If this was about a group of Christians being offended by South Park Jesus, this thread would probably be moking said group for trying to force their beliefs into others comedy.

I believe that deep down, most people don't care if muslims are offended, but are actually scared of what they might do because of their stereotypical idea of Muslims.

I reject that, everyone can and must be criticized. And if they don't like it, just like we would say to any other group out there. Too bad.

 

[DECK'ARD]

So people are not allowed to be offended anymore in "today's society"--whatever that means--even if they're not resorting to violent acts?

Who gets to decide which content can offend or not then? You?

Getting offended =/= committing violent acts because you're offended. Surely you can see the difference?

Have you worked out what you think of that cartoon yet?

If it's taking this long it must at least be thought-provoking

 

[Olli128]

If this was about a group of Christians being offended by South Park Jesus, this thread would probably be moking said group for trying to force their beliefs into others comedy.

I believe that deep down, most people don't care if muslims are offended, but are actually scared of what they might do because of their stereotypical idea of Muslims.

I reject that, everyone can and must be criticized. And if they don't like it, just like we would say to any other group out there. Too bad.

Exactly. Fuck Islam. Fuck Christianity. Fuck Judaism. They're all as ridiculous as each other. You all believe in make believe bullshit and if you're offended by that.. well have fun with that

 

[mujun]

If this was about a group of Christians being offended by South Park Jesus, this thread would probably be moking said group for trying to force their beliefs into others comedy.

I believe that deep down, most people don't care if muslims are offended, but are actually scared of what they might do because of their stereotypical idea of Muslims.

I reject that, everyone can and must be criticized. And if they don't like it, just like we would say to any other group out there. Too bad.

The problem is that in some countries people don't believe that anything or anyone can be criticized. Try criticizing the royalty in Thailand or the government in North Korea. Unfortunately some people (no examples in particular) are willing to go to war or use violence when they hear this criticism.

 

[Ashes]

Exactly. Fuck Islam. Fuck Christianity. Fuck Judaism. They're all as ridiculous as each other. You all believe in make believe bullshit and if you're offended by that.. well have fun with that

How very eloquently you present your dickishness.

 

[Olli128]

How very eloquently you present your dickishness.

Maybe so, but its my right to say it as its your right to argue or state whatever you believe in. People are always shoving religion down my throat but I'm not afraid to say I'm an atheist and I believe all religions are absolute bullshit and I think thats a good thing which we dont want to lose. No one should have to live in fear of violence for their beliefs.

Also if you think that's a dickish way to express my beliefs fine, but you have to admit its better than jihad, the crusades etc.

 

[Nephtis]

the false equivalency here is astounding

 

[devilhawk]

Have you worked out what you think of that cartoon yet?

If it's taking this long it must at least be thought-provoking

He dodged it twice and will probably just disappear rather than answer.

 

[Ashes]

Maybe so, but its my right to say it as its your right to argue or state whatever you believe in. People are always shoving religion down my throat but I'm not afraid to say I'm an atheist and I believe all religions are absolute bullshit and I think thats a good thing which we dont want to lose. No one should have to live in fear of violence for their beliefs.

Also if you think that's a dickish way to express my beliefs fine, but you have to admit its better than jihad, the crusades etc.

I'd had like to say 'you're welcome asshole'. But I think somebody might already have been banned for that or for words of that effect.

Not that I agree people should be banned for talking like so, but on the balance Neogaf is for civil discussions, without the need for puerile use of language.

When are you going to take up 'intellectual' arms against Neogaf?* Or do you care about your membership more than 'free speech'?

*or will you protest by disregarding neogaf terms of service?

 

[Siegcram]

I'd had like to say 'you're welcome asshole'. But I think somebody might already have been banned for that or for words of that effect.

Not that I agree people should be banned for talking like so, but on the balance Neogaf is for civil discussions, without the need for puerile use of language.

When are you going to take up 'intellectual' arms against Neogaf?* Or do you care about your membership more than 'free speech'?

*or will you protest by disregarding neogaf terms of service?

wat

Are you somehow equating the gaf TOS to this whole situation or just being passive-aggressive?

 

[Ashes]

wat

Are you somehow equating the gaf TOS to this whole situation or just being passive-aggressive?

Passive aggressive is closer to the mark, but on the whole both of those readings are wrong.

My position on this, is that sometimes you balance pragmatism with freedom & liberties.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I never said they weren't allowed to be offended. By all means, take offense every time you hear someone sneeze. Just know that you won't be very comfortable as long as you intend on clinging to your delicate sensibilities.

And I didn't say anything about violent acts. Stop trying to tie everything back to that. Being non-violent doesn't exempt you from criticism.

Well, I'd say this: if you really can't see how people of the Islamic faith might find such depictions of Muhammad to be potentially offensive, if you can't spare any thought whatsoever beyond "WTF WHY ARE THEY OFFENDED BY MERE CARTOONS!", then maybe your world view is not as encompassing as you thought? Maybe you are judging them by values and conceptions that you are born and surround yourself in, and you just don't want to or willing to actually understand why people of different values and conceptions than the one yours in might find it to be offensive?

Talking about offended =/= acting violently because offended, of course. I believe all of us here knows that acting violently because people offend you is never a good thing (well, I don't know, maybe sans very specific case perhaps?)

Have you worked out what you think of that cartoon yet?

If it's taking this long it must at least be thought-provoking

Well, to be honest, when I look at it, I am just thinking, "...eh."

Sorry if that is too underwhelming of a reaction or the kind of answer you don't expect.

He dodged it twice and will probably just disappear rather than answer.

What, are you my mom dude? Hahaha.

 

[devilhawk]

^ Ha. Fair enough.

wat

Are you somehow equating the gaf TOS to this whole situation or just being passive-aggressive?

Clearly just trying to bait the guy. Since he doesn't agree with the views of others and has no power to stop them, he is left trying to suppress them by getting the poster banned.

 

[Olli128]

I'd had like to say 'you're welcome asshole'. But I think somebody might already have been banned for that or for words of that effect.

Not that I agree people should be banned for talking like so, but on the balance Neogaf is for civil discussions, without the need for puerile use of language.

When are you going to take up 'intellectual' arms against Neogaf?* Or do you care about your membership more than 'free speech'?

*or will you protest by disregarding neogaf terms of service?

Look, Charlie Hebdo was controversional for its outspokenn and let's be honest not often articulate critisiscmn of religion among other things so I saw no reason not to post in a similar mannerisnm. I have no worries about my membership as I have no worry for my life in talking that way as I live in a moderate society (consisting of many religious denominamtions I might add) who will allow me too and the neogaf moderaoration team are equally moderate and forigivng. I can see your trying to bait me into an argument but so far you've given me nothing to argue against and instead have merely been angry. Honeslty I'm not even sure what you're so upset as to want to call me an asshole but whatever.

 

[Ashes]

Clearly just trying to bait the guy. Since he doesn't agree with the views of others and has no power to stop them, he is left trying to suppress them by getting the poster banned.

Yes, that's exactly the intention.

/s

Good luck with this thread.

edit: I suppose, I'll leave by declaring my opinion on the chosen front cover. It isn't offensive enough to warrant any meaningful debate on the issue, so what is exactly the point?
Just to show they can? They already had that right. Or not to disappoint the readership who might probably call them cowards for not depicting Muhammed? Maybe they recognised the special status of this issue and just had to have something there.

I do wonder what the mother of the Muslim cop feels on the issue. Anyways, enjoy your thread.

Look, Charlie Hebdo was controversional for its outspokenn and let's be honest not often articulate critisiscmn of religion among other things so I saw no reason not to post in a similar mannerisnm. I have no worries about my membership as I have no worry for my life in talking that way as I live in a moderate society (consisting of many religious denominamtions I might add) who will allow me too and the neogaf moderaoration team are equally moderate and forigivng. I can see your trying to bait me into an argument but so far you've given me nothing to argue against and instead have merely been angry. Honeslty I'm not even sure what you're so upset as to want to call me an asshole but whatever.

Oh I'm not upset. I adhere to the battle of ideas, not hate speech. And not deliberately being offensive for offensive's sake - that's called being a dick. This whole 'fuck religion' thing is bleh.
#don't be a dick.

 

[Olli128]

Yes, that's exactly the intention.

/s

Good luck with this thread.

edit: I suppose, I'll leave by declaring my opinion on the chosen front cover. It isn't offensive enough to warrant any meaningful debate on the issue, so what is exactly the point?
Just to show they can? They already had that right. Or not to disappoint the readership who might probably call them cowards for not depicting Muhammed? Maybe they recognised the special status of this issue and just had to have something there.

I do wonder what the mother of the Muslim cop feels on the issue. Anyways, enjoy your thread.

Yes the point is to show that they can. Although they had the right the shootings were an attempt to scare / force people into not doing so and the cover and issue is a reponse to show that it wont work.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Well, to be honest, when I look at it, I am just thinking, "...eh."

Sorry if that is too underwhelming of a reaction or the kind of answer you don't expect.

A bit underwhelming considering how needlessly provocative you said they were, but it's something to work with at least!

Do you think the message "Love is stronger than hate" is worthwhile?
Do you think depicting the message in that manner is needlessly provocative or providing more food for thought?
Does the fact it's a response to their offices being firebombed, which you see smouldering in the background, add to its message and impact?

Do you think it's a stupid cartoon?

 

[CLBridges]

These threads always devolve to people trying to 'one up' someone else smh.

On topic though, I support Charlie Hebdo printing whatever they want, it has no effect on my life whatsoever. They know the consequences and possibility of retaliation, but bravo to them for sticking with what they do.

 

[Laughing Banana]

A bit underwhelming considering how needlessly provocative you said they were, but it's something to work with at least!

Do you think the message "Love is stronger than hate" is worthwhile?
Do you think depicting the message in that manner is needlessly provocative or providing more food for thought?
Does the fact it's a response to their offices being firebombed, and you see it smouldering in the background, add to its message and impact?

Do you think it's a stupid cartoon?

What, I feel like I am getting interviewed here! Or is this some sort of test or something? Perhaps a "how fundamentalist of a Muslim are you?" test? Hahaha.

1. Sure, it's a good message for people of all kinds.
2. For me personally? No to the needlessly provocative part, somewhat to the more food for thought part, though not to the extent of "I am sitting in here thinking how beautiful it is." Like I said, an "eh."
3. Sure.
4. This particular one example? No, not really.

Now, do I pass? On a scale of 1-10, how high is my Islamic fundamentalist spirit? Hahaha.

 

[waypoetic]

Has it dropped or did I get the days wrong?

 

[DECK'ARD]

What, I feel like I am getting interviewed here! Or is this some sort of test or something? Perhaps a "how fundamentalist of a Muslim are you?" test? Hahaha.

1. Sure, it's a good message for people of all kinds.
2. For me personally? No to the needlessly provocative part, somewhat to the more food for thought part, though not to the extent of "I am sitting in here thinking how beautiful it is." Like I said, an "eh."
3. Sure.
4. This particular one example? No, not really.

I didn't even know you were Muslim

And cool, it's nice to meet in the middle on stuff. I think this was a good one too.

 

[Condom]

People being offending too easily is what this generation is all about

What?! Haha, people were offended by fucking ending segregation or saying something bad about the president etc. in the past.

No, the 'problem' of today is unrestricted globalization on steroids. Offend people in China and Chinese people from the south of Norway will get offended 3 hours after your post/shit gets viral. Sparking a discussion on Norwegian television, with heated debates as result.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

It would be great to see South Park actually show Muhammed in one of the future episodes, though I guess that decision ultimately lies in the hands of faceless suits, rather than the writers.
Its disappointing to hear that some US media wont show the new pictures. Even here in Australia, on our leftist ABC news channel, they showed the new cover (after giving the disclaimed "look away if this may offend you etc").
I understand moderate Muslims may get offended by such cartoons, but I think its very important for the cartoons to be published to show terrorists and terrorist sympathizers that their primitive values have no place in civilized societies.

 

[Ikael]

Yeah I see it escalating further if they keep doing it. No one is arguing who's fault it is but provocation can lead to something much worse.

Appeasement has proven to lead to something much, much, much worse than any kind of provocation, as history has shown.

 

[Arjen]

That cover is great.

 

[BocoDragon]

If I was running a magazine in the absence of any controversy... I'd choose not to show Mohammad cartoons out of respect. Not "respect" like "all religions have to be respected because they are religions"... but in the old school way of being cordial to people when I can... because cartoons just aren't important compared to respecting a section of the audience. That's just me and how I'd run a paper.

But now that this kind of incident happens? It's like, now you have to run cartoons like this, because it's been made into a freedom of expression/giving into terrorism issue. If I were in charge of the magazine this week? Yeah, I'd run these comics with no fucks given.

It goes to show how cruel attacks galvanize support towards causes that people would otherwise be on the fence about. It's like Anita and #gamergate or The Interview earlier this year. I had my issues with some of the feminist criticism and I thought making a movie about killing a real human was in worse taste than most people thought to realize.... but once you attack these creators I'm like their number one fan... We can't give into these evil fucks and their attacks. I'm on team freedom of speech, and needless to say, against team threats+violence.

 

[King Tubby]

I always thought the point of the caricatures was in essence a meta-satire. If all it takes is crude scribbles to drive you to murderous rage, what the fuck is wrong with you and your belief system? How absurd is it that there are actually people in this world willing to shed blood over meaningless drawings? Your prophet is a divine messenger of God, you think his honor needs to be defended from the devastating assault of cartoonists?

If you're a moderate Muslim and what they publish offends you, well, sorry. Too bad. Lots of Christians are offended by seeing the crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. Lots of Jews are offended by the antisemitism in Borat or South Park. None of the people involved with those things get shot for it.

 

[KingSnake]

I think that this thread shows that there a lot of people think of freedom of speech/expression as the right to agree with me, when it's rather the opposite, the right to disagree, because that's where the issue is. Also tolerance or multiculturalism has two sides, not only one side must accept the values of the other, it must go both ways.

Also it's obvious that not a lot of people is very familiar with satire in form of cartoons/caricatures, to the point of asking what's the point of it. Which is fine, but maybe you should continue to ignore them rather than trying some kind of censorship. The law is the only limit of the freedom of speech. Civil law, not religious law.

And as mentioned earlier, I don't think it's in the interest of any religion to start now forbidding all the writings that offend big parts of the population. Especially when it's not satire. Don't feed this monster, it might turn around.

Edit: nothing good came in history out of burning books/writings in the name of religious/ideology conformism.

 

[leadbelly]

It goes to show how cruel attacks galvanize support towards causes that people would otherwise be on the fence about.

I just hope it galvanises people in the sense that they understand the importance of fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of expression in all forms rather than simply showing solidarity for the victims.

I mean the irony was not lost on me seeing leaders like David Cameron walking in the streets of Paris in solidarity. David Cameron's party of course in recent months banned the depiction of certain acts in porn. He is not someone who really respects the concept of Freedom of Speech/Expression.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Is liberty making her shut her mouth or what does this imply?

 

[waypoetic]

Ah, here it is

 

[DiipuSurotu]

http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

Understanding Charlie Hebdo - An English-written website explaining Charlie Hebdo cartoons within the context they were published so that they may be better understood.

 

[Red Liquorice]

I always thought the point of the caricatures was in essence a meta-satire. If all it takes is crude scribbles to drive you to murderous rage, what the fuck is wrong with you and your belief system? How absurd is it that there are actually people in this world willing to shed blood over meaningless drawings? Your prophet is a divine messenger of God, you think his honor needs to be defended from the devastating assault of cartoonists?

If you're a moderate Muslim and what they publish offends you, well, sorry. Too bad. Lots of Christians are offended by seeing the crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. Lots of Jews are offended by the antisemitism in Borat or South Park. None of the people involved with those things get shot for it.

This is where it's at for me.

I mean we need to dig deeper, a lot deeper, as to why people are driven to MASS-MURDER over something so insignificant - who the heck cares if someone makes a "graven image" of your idol - are you so insecure in your faith that a drawing can turn your world upsidedown? This idea of "you did X, so you must die" is nuts. It's crazy. I doubt it's even part of the Qur'an and even if it was SO WHAT - the scribbles of a medieval soothsayer should be taken as a right to murder a millenium and a half later? What if Mohammed knew we were going to walk on the moon or see microbes through a microscope? Would he still say the same thing?

Obviously there's a lot at play here pyschologically on an individual level as well as a mass-level. And well, not to point out the obvious, but religion is all about psychological manipulation - we just need to examine what it is about this particular potent mix that creates this kind of bloody social friction.

Personally I see this era, and maybe it will take more than one generation, as the Islamic worlds wake-up call to modernity. I'm hoping that out of the otherside of this period (from the 90s to now and the next few decades) that Islamic countries and societies realise they're part of a wider world. The internet is to Islam what the printing press was to Christianity. It takes time but hopefully we come out of the other side a saner less hateful world.

 

[Suite Pee]

Ah, here it is

Mildly racist depiction of a Muslim aside, that'sapenis.gif

 

[Alx]

http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

Understanding Charlie Hebdo - An English-written website explaining Charlie Hebdo cartoons within the context they were published so that they may be better understood.

Very good explanations all-around, and certainly useful for people unfamiliar with the magazine to get its general purpose.

 

[nacimento]

Doing the right think. Religion must be met with fearless disteepest, a great quote by Rushdie, who knows the topic first hand.

It's like a tragic and grotesque case of Streisand effect.

 

[Funky Papa]

Mildly racist depiction of a Muslim aside, that'sapenis.gif

That's Mohammed.

And I fail to see the racism.

 

[Stereogatari]

Well, I'd say this: if you really can't see how people of the Islamic faith might find such depictions of Muhammad to be potentially offensive, if you can't spare any thought whatsoever beyond "WTF WHY ARE THEY OFFENDED BY MERE CARTOONS!", then maybe your world view is not as encompassing as you thought? Maybe you are judging them by values and conceptions that you are born and surround yourself in, and you just don't want to or willing to actually understand why people of different values and conceptions than the one yours in might find it to be offensive?

I agree. The people that are turning this into Good VS Evil are repulsive. "We are good because we have freedoms, they are bad because they don't" is the mantra of many. But it's easy for us to say having grown up on a privileged side of history. There are underlying machinations as to why our countries developed this way and the majority of Muslims didn't, dragging them kicking and screaming into "the 21st century" is hypocritical when Western countries themselves developed these ideas organically over time.

If World History had been different then perhaps we'd be talking about Jesus cartoons and the Westerners and Muslims would be in reverse roles.

Promote freedom of speech and disseminate the cartoons by all means, I'll be right there with you. But let's not paint Anti-Cartoonist Muslims* as evil and instead keep in mind that they are a product of their environment just as much as we are ours.

*Incidentally there are loads of Pro-Cartoonist Muslims of course.

 

[waypoetic]

Mildly racist depiction of a Muslim aside, that'sapenis.gif

It's already been addressed, but that's Mohammed. Racist? Explain.

 

[DarkLordMalik]

That's Mohammed.

And I fail to see the racism.

It's not. It's just a drawing of a cartoon from the imagination of some random artist of Charlie Hebdo.

This cover was lame though. I am a muslim, and while I support freedom of speech, using such drawing to prove a point only goes on to show that they don't have the talent to make actual thought provoking drawings. They just want to cash on the most offensive way. In the case here, they are actually drawing it so it looks like a penis. Which again, proves what? That Muslims are dickheads?

I actually found many genuinely interesting caricatures/cartoons from the press all over the world over this incident. The one on the first page of this thread is really well done. The one with the "They drew first" was also a great drawing. But not this cover after the attack on their office.

 

[Funky Papa]

It's not. It's just a drawing of a cartoon from the imagination of some random artist of Charlie Hebdo.

This is a new level of pedantry.

 

[KingSnake]

It's not. It's just a drawing of a cartoon from the imagination of some random artist of Charlie Hebdo.

This cover was lame though. I am a muslim, and while I support freedom of speech, using such drawing to prove a point only goes on to show that they don't have the talent to make actual thought provoking drawings. They just want to cash on the most offensive way. In the case here, they are actually drawing it so it looks like a penis. Which again, proves what? That Muslims are dickheads?

I actually found many genuinely interesting caricatures/cartoons from the press all over the world over this incident. The one on the first page of this thread is really well done. The one with the "They drew first" was also a great drawing. But not this cover after the attack on their office.

Well, they literally don't have it since last week.

 

[Stereogatari]

It's already been addressed, but that's Mohammed. Racist? Explain.

The only ignorant (lol) part I see is the wrong headdress which is more of a Persian/Afghan style, Arabs wear something completely different. It's not racist but it's conflating vastly different parts of the Muslim world.

Also it's unlikely Mohammed was this brown, this will be up to personal perception of course but to me he looks like an Indian in these cartoons.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

It's not. It's just a drawing of a cartoon from the imagination of some random artist of Charlie Hebdo.

This cover was lame though. I am a muslim, and while I support freedom of speech, using such drawing to prove a point only goes on to show that they don't have the talent to make actual thought provoking drawings. They just want to cash on the most offensive way. In the case here, they are actually drawing it so it looks like a penis. Which again, proves what? That Muslims are dickheads?

I actually found many genuinely interesting caricatures/cartoons from the press all over the world over this incident. The one on the first page of this thread is really well done. The one with the "They drew first" was also a great drawing. But not this cover after the attack on their office.

Oh here comes the humor police.

 

[Siegcram]

The only ignorant (lol) part I see is the wrong headdress which is more of a Persian/Afghan style, Arabs wear something completely different. It's not racist but it's conflating vastly different parts of the Muslim world.

Also it's unlikely Mohammed was this brown, this will be up to personal perception of course but to me he looks like an Indian in these cartoons.

The wrong shade of brown? lmao

 

[Stereogatari]

The wrong shade of brown? lmao

Yep. My problems with the cartoons are they aren't accurate enough. I want my Mo toons accurate, with blackjack and hookers (camel racing and belly dancers?).

 

[davepoobond]

The only ignorant (lol) part I see is the wrong headdress which is more of a Persian/Afghan style, Arabs wear something completely different. It's not racist but it's conflating vastly different parts of the Muslim world.

Also it's unlikely Mohammed was this brown, this will be up to personal perception of course but to me he looks like an Indian in these cartoons.

Is this whole post reverse psychology satire?