NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Moral of this story? If you don't want your "prophet" or religious icon mocked, kill a few people and Comedy Central will show their true colors: yellow.


Jesus Yes, Mohammed No, on South Park (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200604/CUL20060417b.html)


By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
April 17, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Postings on Comedy Central's website have been running hot over the Easter weekend as viewers commented on the network's refusal to allow a depiction of Mohammed in a South Park episode that instead lampooned Jesus.

Last week's episode was the second in a two-parter focusing on this year's controversy over the publication in Danish media of cartoons depicting the prophet of Islam. The furor spawned protests, riots, killings, the jailing of journalists, and an unprecedented push by Islamic authorities to have international organizations act to protect Muslim sensitivities.

At the point in the episode where the show's Mohammed character is expected to make an appearance, the screen blanked out and carried the message "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network."

After some initial confusion over whether this was part of the gag, or whether South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone were taking a serious dig at their host network, Comedy Central issued a statement appearing to confirm the latter.

"Our decision was made, not to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion over any other," the statement said. "This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events."

"Much as we wish it weren't the case, times have changed and, as witnessed by the intense and deadly reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons, decisions cannot be made in a vacuum without considering what impact they may have on innocent individuals around the globe."

Comedy Central said it would "continue to produce and provide the best comedy available and ... continue to push it right to the edge."

The censored South Park episode included a scene involving Jesus, President Bush, an American flag and defecation.

South Park has frequently stirred controversy by mocking religious beliefs. Moreover, a character depicting Mohammed has appeared in a previous episode, first aired in 2001, in which he is a member of a team of leading religious figures recruited to fight an evil cult.

Scores of postings on Comedy Central's "Insider" web log excoriated the network for the censorship decision, accusing it of cowardice and of "caving in" to Islam.

I still say it was part of the gag. I'm betting the "official statement" is also part of the gag.

Knowing Trey Parker and his work, I'm almost willing to bet that as this gag blows up further and further and more and more people start boycotting Comedy Central and protesting Comedy Central for showing a black screen with a message, eventually there will be a South Park to follow up the recent episode depicting a lot of idiot Americans screaming in outrage over such a simple, harmless image. (That is, if there's an official statement as such. It is CNSNews)

When you think Trey Parker, try to remember Andy Kaufman. The more people fall for it, the funnier it is.

When you think Trey Parker, try to remember Andy Kaufman. The more people fall for it, the funnier it is.

In four years, he's going to appear on SNL. Just you wait and see.

I do not have enough previous experiance of either to decide either way, however I did see an episode previously where they lampoon, and even castigate, society for "burying its head in the sand" and acquiesing to Muslim sensitivity when a mock family guy episode included Mohammed. Could relating CC to Fox be criticism?

I still say it was part of the gag.

i saw the episode last night. i thought it was incredibly funny. i agree it was part of the gag...

Well, all things considered. Burying your head in the sand beats having someone else do it for you..
The danish cartoons thing blew quite up a bit, and this would've been considerably worse I think..

Well, all things considered. Burying your head in the sand beats having someone else do it for you..
The danish cartoons thing blew quite up a bit, and this would've been considerably worse I think..

Ya Boo sucks to them, in short. If they are sufficient hypersensitive to be enraged by such images, and not accept them as either satire or bad taste, they are an anathema to free speech, and thereforr not worthy of consideration. No-one is forcing them to watch either SouthPark, or the Danish cartoons.

Stupid! Just Plain Stupid!!! PC or not, you have control right in the palm of your hand! If you do not like something there is 1000 other channels to choose from. Or even better turn the dam thing off and use your time to do something worth while.

It was part of the joke.
If a station finds a part of an episode offensive they simply WON'T SHOW IT
We all know what happened with the secret Jewish episode of Family Guy.

I still say it was part of the gag. I'm betting the "official statement" is also part of the gag.

Knowing Trey Parker and his work, I'm almost willing to bet that as this gag blows up further and further and more and more people start boycotting Comedy Central and protesting Comedy Central for showing a black screen with a message, eventually there will be a South Park to follow up the recent episode depicting a lot of idiot Americans screaming in outrage over such a simple, harmless image. (That is, if there's an official statement as such. It is CNSNews)

When you think Trey Parker, try to remember Andy Kaufman. The more people fall for it, the funnier it is.
I totally disagree. It was no "gag," and feeling free to satiraize only those religions which don't threaten you with bodily harm equates to cowardice.

Ya Boo sucks to them, in short. If they are sufficient hypersensitive to be enraged by such images, and not accept them as either satire or bad taste, they are an anathema to free speech, and thereforr not worthy of consideration. Well, if they were entirely impotent to do anything that might harm you. Sure. Then you can safely disregard them. However when they're known to protest rather violently, lashing out against innocent people as well as yourself. Well, you might want to show some consideration.
I mean, you wouldn't go into a Hell's Angels bar, insult the worst you can think up, and then think to walk off under the cover of 'free speech'. Things have consequences, even if they should be perfectly ok. The question is whether you're willing to take responsibility for the consequences.
Maybe the Muslim countries will get pissed off enough to just close the oil pipes. Then what?

Being right doesn't put gasoline in the car.

Well, all things considered. Burying your head in the sand beats having someone else do it for you..
The danish cartoons thing blew quite up a bit, and this would've been considerably worse I think..
So censorship is ok if someone threatens you? Hardly! When you're threatened, freedom of speech should become even more important, if such a thing is possible.

I totally disagree. It was no "gag," and feeling free to satiraize only those religions which don't threaten you with bodily harm equates to cowardice.

scientologists can get pretty messy...

So censorship is ok if someone threatens you?Self-censorship? Sure.
Just a matter of whether you prefer to be heard and get a kick to the head, or neither.
It's a choice.

It was part of the joke.
If a station finds a part of an episode offensive they simply WON'T SHOW IT
We all know what happened with the secret Jewish episode of Family Guy.
No "we" don't, and even if we did, censorship to preclude being attacked is just plain wrong ... period.

scientologists can get pretty messy...
But they are a cult and not a religion... so they aren't afforded the same democratic protection. ~_^

Well, if they were entirely impotent to do anything that might harm you. Sure. Then you can safely disregard them. However when they're known to protest rather violently, lashing out against innocent people as well as yourself. Well, you might want to show some consideration.
I mean, you wouldn't go into a Hell's Angels bar, insult the worst you can think up, and then think to walk off under the cover of 'free speech'. Things have consequences, even if they should be perfectly ok. The question is whether you're willing to take responsibility for the consequences.
Maybe the Muslim countries will get pissed off enough to just close the oil pipes. Then what?

Being right doesn't put gasoline in the car.
There's a name for this. It's called "cowardice." End of story.

i have no idea if it was part of the joke or not, i dont watch southpark

but i dont have a problem with a company not being willing to have people killed just to prove they (the company) have the right to show tasteless and offensive jokes. how many lives are equal to one mohammed joke?

scientologists can get pretty messy...
Frack 'em if they can't take a joke.

I totally disagree. It was no "gag," and feeling free to satiraize only those religions which don't threaten you with bodily harm equates to cowardice.

But that's just the point of the joke. Your indignance and outrage is *exactly* what Trey Parker wants. He *wants* people to get outraged over *what looks like* Comedy Central allowing him to depict Jesus crapping on Bush, Americans, and the American flag, but dissallowing Muhammed, as the show says, "just standing there and looking normal".

His message is simple: Freedom of Speech is a revolving door. Just as you have the Freedom to speak, Comedy Central has the freedom *not* to speak or show certain cartoons or whatever.

You just have to understand Trey Parker.

There's a name for this. It's called "cowardice." End of story.So, basicly, in the extreme, you'd rather start a world war, then not say/do one rather unimportant thing?

Well, gee.. Thanks for valuing all of us so much..
Unfortunately this isn't so simple that it would only involve the network. They're not just covering their own bases here.

Well, if they were entirely impotent to do anything that might harm you. Sure. Then you can safely disregard them. However when they're known to protest rather violently, lashing out against innocent people as well as yourself. Well, you might want to show some consideration.
I mean, you wouldn't go into a Hell's Angels bar, insult the worst you can think up, and then think to walk off under the cover of 'free speech'. Things have consequences, even if they should be perfectly ok. The question is whether you're willing to take responsibility for the consequences.
Maybe the Muslim countries will get pissed off enough to just close the oil pipes. Then what?

Being right doesn't put gasoline in the car.

Hence the necessity for a viable fossil fuel alternative. If we over-reacted every time an Islamic publication or gathering published defamatory images or text relating to the west, christianity or McDonalds, would we ever be at home? No. The fear over Islam is, for the most part, reactionary. Prior to 9/11 nobody cared, major Islamic attacks in the west are rare, hence why do we care?

i have no idea if it was part of the joke or not, i dont watch southpark

but i dont have a problem with a company not being willing to have people killed just to prove they (the company) have the right to show tasteless and offensive jokes. how many lives are equal to one mohammed joke?
Don't I recall having seen a number of people on here get rather incensed over the supposed "loss of freedoms" under the Patriot Act, despite being totally unable to explain just what "freedoms" had been lost? Yet some of these same people are advocating censorship because "someone might get annoyed." What the FRACK is wrong with this picture??? Can you say "nuclear level congnitive dissonance," boys and girls?

So, basicly, in the extreme, you'd rather start a world war, then not say/do one rather unimportant thing?

Well, gee.. Thanks for valuing all of us so much..
Unfortunately this isn't so simple that it would only involve the network. They're not just covering their own bases here.

If it comes to a world war between the west and Islam, who wins? The west. Why? We can defeat them at the flick of a switch.

So, basicly, in the extreme, you'd rather start a world war, then not say/do one rather unimportant thing?

Well, gee.. Thanks for valuing all of us so much..
Unfortunately this isn't so simple that it would only involve the network. They're not just covering their own bases here.
Get a frakking CLUE! We're already involved in a world war! Jeeze! :mad:

But that's just the point of the joke. Your indignance and outrage is *exactly* what Trey Parker wants. He *wants* people to get outraged over *what looks like* Comedy Central allowing him to depict Jesus crapping on Bush, Americans, and the American flag, but dissallowing Muhammed, as the show says, "just standing there and looking normal".

His message is simple: Freedom of Speech is a revolving door. Just as you have the Freedom to speak, Comedy Central has the freedom *not* to speak or show certain cartoons or whatever.

You just have to understand Trey Parker.
Utter nonsense.

If it comes to a world war between the west and Islam, who wins? The west. Why? We can defeat them at the flick of a switch.Well, some of them do have nukes, you know..
And, well, personally, I'd rather avoid genocide. But maybe I'm just peculiar that way.
It's one thing to risk your own life doing something offensive, but it's entirely another thing to risk other's lives.
Of course, it's still just a choice. Comedy gold vs horrible consequences? Well, everybody likes a good joke, right?

The fear over Islam is, for the most part, reactionary. Prior to 9/11 nobody cared, major Islamic attacks in the west are rare, hence why do we care?
It's statements like this that make me wonder just what frakking universe some people live in. :confused: :(

Get a frakking CLUE!I didn't knwo we were playing cluesedo..

We're already involved in a world war! Jeeze! :mad:pfff.. we're so not.. Not an actual one anyway, a luke-warm to cold one maybe.

Well, some of them do have nukes, you know..
And, well, personally, I'd rather avoid genocide. But maybe I'm just peculiar that way.
It's one thing to risk your own life doing something offensive, but it's entirely another thing to risk other's lives.
Of course, it's still just a choice. Comedy gold vs horrible consequences? Well, everybody likes a good joke, right?
Totally specious. It's the difference between being able to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed freedom, and caving in to threats. Simple.

I didn't knwo we were playing cluesedo..

pfff.. we're so not.. Not an actual one anyway, a luke-warm to cold one maybe.
You need to wake the hell up.

If it comes to a world war between the west and Islam, who wins? The west. Why? We can defeat them at the flick of a switch.
Not before they take out Israel just to stick it to us....

Utter nonsense.

Not really. You have to know Trey Parker and his work. You also have to remember Andy Kaufman, who Parker idolizes, and *his* work. Have you forgotten the whole Kaufman/Lawler thing or Tony Clifton? All done with the good graces and chuckles of the network?

Come on, Eut. You've been the victim of this sort of thing before.

Must you fall for it again?

Look at the timing. Kaufman started wrestling women at the height of women's lib movements - a real push button issue. Parker and Comedy Central are using today's push button issue.

You need to wake the hell up.Why?
And any particular reason you take such liberal use of your constitutional right to swear in a debate?

Your points come across better when you don't..

Why?
And any particular reason you take such liberal use of your constitutional right to swear in a debate?

Your points come across better when you don't..
( shrug ) So sue me.

Don't I recall having seen a number of people on here get rather incensed over the supposed "loss of freedoms" under the Patriot Act, despite being totally unable to explain just what "freedoms" had been lost? Yet some of these same people are advocating censorship because "someone might get annoyed." What the FRACK is wrong with this picture??? Can you say "nuclear level congnitive dissonance," boys and girls?
you dont see the difference between the government keeping track of my library habits and a company deciding that telling a joke isnt worth it?

hmmmm

one is the government doing something to ME

one is a company doing something to ITSELF

there are many times i decide not to say something because i realize it might be considered offensive, does that mean i am advocating censorship?

( shrug ) So sue me.
Whatever you say, Stan... ;)

Not before they take out Israel just to stick it to us....

Not to be callous, but thats another problem solved in the process. Israel appears to be a nucleur capable, remarkably armed and mobilised state anyway....

I am amused at Eutrusca's outrage at the apparent censoring of Comedy Central while self-censoring his own use of the word "fuck".

you dont see the difference between the government keeping track of my library habits and a company deciding that telling a joke isnt worth it?

hmmmm

one is the government doing something to ME

one is a company doing something to ITSELF

there are many times i decide not to say something because i realize it might be considered offensive, does that mean i am advocating censorship?
All of which is beside the point. Censorship ( whether self-imposed or other-imposed ) in the face of threats is still cowardice on someone's part.

I am amused at Eutrusca's outrage at the apparent censoring of Comedy Central while self-censoring his own use of the word "fuck".
Which I sometimes do out of consideration for the sensibilites of others. Comedy Central has never been noted for having consideration for others as part of their approach to satire ... until now.

Not to mention that no one is threatening me if I decide to say "fuck."

Which I sometimes do out of consideration for the sensibilites of others. Comedy Central has never been noted for having consideration for others as part of their approach to satire ... until now.

So how are you not cowardly for censoring yourself for the sensibilities of others?

Not really. You have to know Trey Parker and his work. You also have to remember Andy Kaufman, who Parker idolizes, and *his* work. Have you forgotten the whole Kaufman/Lawler thing or Tony Clifton? All done with the good graces and chuckles of the network?

Come on, Eut. You've been the victim of this sort of thing before.

Must you fall for it again?

Look at the timing. Kaufman started wrestling women at the height of women's lib movements - a real push button issue. Parker and Comedy Central are using today's push button issue.
I agree this does seem like a Parker/Kaufman sort of thing to do ... people like eut geting mad make it all that more precious lol

All of which is beside the point. Censorship ( whether self-imposed or other-imposed ) in the face of threats is still cowardice on someone's part.

Precisely.

So how are you not cowardly for censoring yourself for the sensibilities of others?
Uh ... because no one is threatening me should I decide to say "fuck?" Ya think??? :rolleyes:

But they are a cult and not a religion... so they aren't afforded the same democratic protection. ~_^

are they officialy recognized by the gov't? like on census forms and stuff like that?


the reason muslims have a problem with muhammed being depicted is because they are expressly forbidden to do so. that's a major thing in islam. all the art in islamic countries from around 1200-1600 show no beings, just designs. thye're not allowed to depict beings, be they muhammed or some random rabbit.

why arent people outraged over jesus taking a crap on bush? because jesus isnt the importnat part of christianity. the bible is. :rolleyes:

oh, and i may hate bush, but he does not deserve to be crapped on. not even by jesus. (holy crap! :eek: )

All of which is beside the point. Censorship ( whether self-imposed or other-imposed ) in the face of threats is still cowardice on someone's part.I'd say it depends on who is threatened. Caving in to safe yourself is cowardice; to safe others, at least not so much.
In many comics, the villain always threatens the sidekick to get the hero to comply, because the hero would just let himself be shot rather than saving himself. But it's harder to decide someone else's fate. Chances are, like last time, muslims would trample each other in riots. (Which makes it an especially ironic choice to make imo)

Uh ... because no one is threatening me should I decide to say "fuck?" Ya think??? :rolleyes:

I do think. You obviously do not. Explain the difference between you censoring yourself out of concern for offending someone and Comedy Central censoring this image out of concern for offending people.

I think that if you have something that says "Insert image of Mohammed here" it works just as well, because people know what's going on. And Muslims are happy because no image of the prophet was depicted.

Well, happy may not be the right word.

I think that if you have something that says "Insert image of Mohammed here" it works just as well, because people know what's going on. And Muslims are happy because no image of the prophet was depicted.

Well, happy may not be the right word.
Lol why that would ruin the joke lol

Edit: With putting the insert picture here thing it does not get people riled up ... I think they did it just right as is :)

The thing is, I agree with the message of that episode.

If you agree not to show images of Mohammed because it pisses people off, then you equally have to agree to tiptoe around any group that's oversensitive about anything.

Violent protest goes *against* the teachings of the Islam religion. And if an individual Muslim is irrational enough to hurt somebody just because an image of Mohammed was shown on television, then they're probably going to find *some* excuse to be violent.

Ideological bullies are just like any other bullies. If you give them your lunch money because they beat you up, they're only going to beat you up again next time they want something from you.

And it shows a streak of political cowardice that we can't stand up for our own values in the faces of those kinds of ideological bullies.

--

As for the South Park episode...I don't think Matt and Trey really wanted to show an image of Mohammed. But I don't think comedy central would have let them if they did.

Well, happy may not be the right word.

not being offended is the right word.

i mean, christians have no problem with their spiritual leader being defaced. . .


:rolleyes:
(God, why does 'shit happen'?)

I do think. You obviously do not. Explain the difference between you censoring yourself out of concern for offending someone and Comedy Central censoring this image out of concern for offending people.

Has it occurred to you that he finds the term objectionable?

Omitting to swear is also a social convention, since one has other words at one's disposal that have a similar implication. Somewhat different to censorship no?

n.b. I don't know if Eutrusca does or does not object to "fuck", its just a question.

snip

As for the South Park episode...I don't think Matt and Trey really wanted to show an image of Mohammed. But I don't think comedy central would have let them if they did.
With their track record what makes you think that they would not?

With their track record what makes you think that they would not?

An explanation was offered previously.

The thing is, I agree with the message of that episode.

If you agree not to show images of Mohammed because it pisses people off, then you equally have to agree to tiptoe around any group that's oversensitive about anything.

Violent protest goes *against* the teachings of the Islam religion. And if an individual Muslim is irrational enough to hurt somebody just because an image of Mohammed was shown on television, then they're probably going to find *some* excuse to be violent.

Ideological bullies are just like any other bullies. If you give them your lunch money because they beat you up, they're only going to beat you up again next time they want something from you.

And it shows a streak of political cowardice that we can't stand up for our own values in the faces of those kinds of ideological bullies.

--

As for the South Park episode...I don't think Matt and Trey really wanted to show an image of Mohammed. But I don't think comedy central would have let them if they did.

Verily so.

Lol why that would ruin the joke lol
Yes, I didn't mean exactly like that. I should have added "Or words to that effect."

I think the way they did it works, even if involuntary. You're still mocking Mohammed, but not showing his picture, which for Muslims is what's important. And you're also getting people like Eutrusca pissed, which is also good. So, the people who should be offended aren't; the people who shouldn't are, and the rest are enjoying a good laugh.

Muslims being angry is fine. They should be angry. It's their right. I'm angry when Bill O'Reilly calls me a godless heathen who wants to destroy American values because I'm an atheist. I don't go firebomb his studio.

Violence is never acceptable in response to insult, and Mohammed did not condone violence. What would Mohammed approve of less? A non-Muslim showing an image of Mohammed, or thousands of Muslims attacking the Danish embassy in response to it?

We can not cower before these ideological bullies.

Muslims being angry is fine. They should be angry. It's their right. I'm angry when Bill O'Reilly calls me a godless heathen who wants to destroy American values because I'm an atheist. I don't go firebomb his studio.

Violence is never acceptable in response to insult, and Mohammed did not condone violence. What would Mohammed approve of less? A non-Muslim showing an image of Mohammed, or thousands of Muslims attacking the Danish embassy in response to it?

We can not cower before these ideological bullies.

nor can we insult the other 98% of muslims who disagree with blowing themselves up to prove a point.

Yes, I didn't mean exactly like that. I should have added "Or words to that effect."

I think the way they did it works, even if involuntary. You're still mocking Mohammed, but not showing his picture, which for Muslims is what's important. And you're also getting people like Eutrusca pissed, which is also good. So, the people who should be offended aren't; the people who shouldn't are, and the rest are enjoying a good laugh.
Who says it is involuntary? Like stated before this is JUST the sort of stunt parker would pull (being a student of Kaufman)

In the end the joke is not on the Muslim's it is on the people getting all enraged over “cowardice” and censoring :)

Muslims being angry is fine. They should be angry. It's their right. I'm angry when Bill O'Reilly calls me a godless heathen who wants to destroy American values because I'm an atheist. I don't go firebomb his studio.

Violence is never acceptable in response to insult, and Mohammed did not condone violence. What would Mohammed approve of less? A non-Muslim showing an image of Mohammed, or thousands of Muslims attacking the Danish embassy in response to it?

We can not cower before these ideological bullies.
Yes, alright, we all know that many people in many situations take the words of their prophets and throw them out the window to prove a point that somebody else took the words of their prophets and threw them out the window. But saying "I'm not gonna be intimidated by you Muslims, not no way, not no how" is NOT going to keep them from reacting in a violent manner. What Mohammed would approve of is not the issue. What you personally do or don't believe about these "ideological bullies" is not the issue. The issue is that, for whatever reason, the censorship in this case (though I personally believe it was an intended part of the episode, but let's roll with it) was not for the protection of one person who feared the Islam extremists, it was for the protection of many people who likely had absolutely nothing to do with the episode in question. Whether or not you agree with censorship in the broadest degree (which, btw, I generally don't), this is one case in which I could see the other side.

But then, like I mentioned before, I believe that it was intended to be what it was, otherwise I doubt they would've flashed to Bush stating "That wasn't so bad" and then explaining exactly what Mohammed was doing.

I think the way they did it works, even if involuntary. You're still mocking Mohammed, but not showing his picture, which for Muslims is what's important. And you're also getting people like Eutrusca pissed, which is also good. So, the people who should be offended aren't; the people who shouldn't are, and the rest are enjoying a good laugh.

Genius...absolute genius. Andy Kaufman lives!

Just a point, or, even a solution, Could SouthPark not have included a square on the screen that quite patently covers an image of Mohammed? It would neither offend Islam nor be seen as cowardice on the part of CC and SouthPark.

Just a point, or, even a solution, Could SouthPark not have included a square on the screen that quite patently covers an image of Mohammed? It would neither offend Islam nor be seen as cowardice on the part of CC and SouthPark.
That's part of what they did the first week in their jab to FOX, though. For Parker to have done exactly the same thing that he placed as the fault of FOX would have had less of an impact. By blanking out the entire screen not only did it serve his purpose brilliantly, but created a moment of confusion even for the people who later figured it was all planned out.

Totally specious. It's the difference between being able to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed freedom, and caving in to threats. Simple.
So when black people threaten to riot over cartoons that show them as apes and likeing fried chicken, we shouldnt back down right? Or when someone draws US troops as baby killers or mocks their death, thats ok right? I mean afterall, we have to use freedom of speech no matter what the consquences right? Or those evil muslims win:rolleyes:

So when black people threaten to riot over cartoons that show them as apes and likeing fried chicken, we shouldnt back down right? Or when someone draws US troops as baby killers or mocks their death, thats ok right? I mean afterall, we have to use freedom of speech no matter what the consquences right? Or those evil muslims win:rolleyes:

It started out so well. Try again.

Simonist']That's part of what they did the first week in their jab to FOX, though. For Parker to have done exactly the same thing that he placed as the fault of FOX would have had less of an impact. By blanking out the entire screen not only did it serve his purpose brilliantly, but created a moment of confusion even for the people who later figured it was all planned out.

Oh. Now I understand. I was in the US until last Tuesday, and saw the first episode. Incidentally, is Florida reflecive of all the US in terms of society and commercialisation?

Oh. Now I understand. I was in the US until last Tuesday, and saw the first episode. Incidentally, is Florida reflecive of all the US in terms of society and commercialisation?
Absolutely not, and I totally choked on my milk with laughter on that one.

Florida serves two purposes, where the rest of the US is concerned -- old folks go there to die, and young folks go there to lose their money. There's a small minority in certain areas of the very rich, but they're in gated communities. As for the folks who live there natively....well, yeah, they're much like the average US citizen, except that as an "average" US citizen, I can't seem to ever understand where they get their news or how they pass high school or why the hell they're actually still living down there.....

Florida is basically one of the vacation Meccas for people who can't afford to really leave the country.

It started out so well. Try again.
:confused:

All of which is beside the point. Censorship ( whether self-imposed or other-imposed ) in the face of threats is still cowardice on someone's part.
no its not.

if i know that to call a young black man ****** will get me punched in the face but i decide not to say it because its rude, im not being a coward. if i dont say it because my husband will get punched instead of me, im not being a coward.

if a company decides that its wise to not re-escalate a conflict that has caused the deaths of quite a few people in another country just for the sake being able to be offensive, they are being wise, not cowardly.

how many lives are equal to one mohammed joke?

It was part of the joke.
If a station finds a part of an episode offensive they simply WON'T SHOW IT
We all know what happened with the secret Jewish episode of Family Guy.
Secret? It has aired on Adult Swim many times.

Secret? It has aired on Adult Swim many times.

is that 'when you wish upon a weinstein'?

didnt they leanr anything from the message in the episode:headbang:

i think it was all part of the joke

is that 'when you wish upon a weinstein'?

yep, but they had to change some of the lyrics or something along those lines

Bottom line coming up, just warning those of you with weak minds and constitutions (paper and internal):


If it was a joke, then good for them, they executed it well.

If not, then CC is being a douche.

Here's why - if we truly believe people are in danger of being hurt or killed or even threatened for something that's completely legal, then those that would do those things shouldn't be appeased and instead should be jailed. End of story. We shouldn't tolerate ignorance at that level.

"But people will die!" People have been dying for free speech since it was labeled a basic human right - if they stop now, it might as well not be a right. Especially in the face of religion, and not just any religion, but Islam.

Does anyone else find it incredibly hipocritical and immeasurably idiotic that their response to a cartoon that made fun of the religion and stated that Muslims were violent people by religion and by nature - they reacted how? THEY BECAME VIOLENT. How fucking stupid do you have to be, really? What better way to truly prove someone right than by doing something they just said you've been doing.

Those that rioted and killed and injured should be thrown into a deep well, that way they'll never have to see anything ever criticizing their savior ever again, because they're obviously not mature enough to handle it and haven't earned the right to be treated like human beings.

I've got nothing against the Islamic religion itself, other than the effects it's had on controlling and manipulating those below the higher-ups in the hierarchy of the religion itself, but those who practice in peace I've got no beef with. Anyone who takes their religion seriously enough (or are just too stupid to take it correctly) to not care about the lives of someone who had nothing to do with what's pissing you off to the point where you would kill them, and ignore the irony of the situation you've created... I've got beef with them. Regardless of whether they're Christian or Muslim or Jewish or whatever - they're retards if they act in this uncivilized and unwarranted manner.


Plain and simple. Bottom line brought to you by Szanth. Most likely this post will be ignored and the discussion will continue needlessly (considering I just ended it entirely), but whatever.

You need to wake the hell up.
No, YOU do.

I'm proud of (and thankful for) your military service, and as I've posted many times, much of my family is or was in the service.

But it ain't a world war of ANY kind until our own government acts like it by NOT giving away tax cuts, advocating sacrifice in the name of the war, FORCING corporations to pay their share, and placing the nation on a wartime footing. Wanting to play with our toys in the sand and still spending and consuming like tomorrow will never come is just plain stupid. Get off the patriotic bandwagon until Bushco gets on it and leads like a wartime leader instead of some jock in high school who's egging on his pals to kick someone's ass for him. He can't keep the fat cats greased AND lead a nation in war at the same time.

So if this is the world war you seem to think it is, why isn't the nation cutting back?

_________________________________________________________


Now, as far as the South Park issue goes, if it's not a joke, then CC is the biggest bunch of pussies ever. Parody Jesus, Mormons, and all kinds of other religious and secular icons, but piss off a Muslim? Heaven forfend! Well fuck that. Islam shows its true colors every time their fringe overreacts to a stupid cartoon or something someone says that, while a joke, has the kernel of truth in it (as most good jokes do). Then the supposed moderates do nothing about it. What's the first thing that happens when some Christian fringe element does something egregious? The Christian mainstream reminds us all that the "average" Christian isn't like that. Where's the Muslim equivalent?

Fuck Islam if it can't take a joke. Fuck it right in the ear.

So when black people threaten to riot over cartoons that show them as apes and likeing fried chicken, we shouldnt back down right? Or when someone draws US troops as baby killers or mocks their death, thats ok right? I mean afterall, we have to use freedom of speech no matter what the consquences right? Or those evil muslims win:rolleyes:
Swing, and a miss.

Swing, and a miss.
how so?

no its not.

if i know that to call a young black man ****** will get me punched in the face but i decide not to say it because its rude, im not being a coward. if i dont say it because my husband will get punched instead of me, im not being a coward.

if a company decides that its wise to not re-escalate a conflict that has caused the deaths of quite a few people in another country just for the sake being able to be offensive, they are being wise, not cowardly.

how many lives are equal to one mohammed joke?
As many as it takes to show the world how fucked up it is to react with violence when none was offered you. I'd die for that.

<snip>
Plain and simple. Bottom line brought to you by Szanth. Most likely this post will be ignored and the discussion will continue needlessly (considering I just ended it entirely), but whatever.
But you didn't end it. You gave us your opinion. I consider your opinion wrong in many counts. But, as you can't entirely argue opinion, I'll respect you just enough to not accuse you of ignoring most of the other posts made in this thread, and give the benefit of the doubt that you just chose to ignore the points made that already contradicted your points.

The only one that I really feel the need to touch on is your statement of "maturity" in the light of the protests and violent reactions. First of all, just because somebody protests does not mean they're a member of the violent extreme. They should not all be "thrown in a well" because, well, there are varying degrees of rage and indignation -- those who merely protested, chose to express themselves in a peaceful way. Shame on you for judging them. As for "maturity", it's not an issue of them being immature. One of the key tennets of their religion, which defines their way of life over there, was violated by the Western world, which many of them, extreme or not, likely already consider to be against them (which we pretty much are). For them to disagree with the fact that their religion was completely disrepsected and violated isn't an immature thing to do.

Well, if they were entirely impotent to do anything that might harm you. Sure. Then you can safely disregard them. However when they're known to protest rather violently, lashing out against innocent people as well as yourself. Well, you might want to show some consideration.
I mean, you wouldn't go into a Hell's Angels bar, insult the worst you can think up, and then think to walk off under the cover of 'free speech'. Things have consequences, even if they should be perfectly ok. The question is whether you're willing to take responsibility for the consequences.
Maybe the Muslim countries will get pissed off enough to just close the oil pipes. Then what?

Being right doesn't put gasoline in the car.
So let me get this straight. If the KKK started suicide bombing anyone who said their organization was racist and backward, you would be for leaving them alone? Somehow I doubt it.

how so?
Because Blacks aren't apes, primarily.

Mainstream Islam, however, is violent. So long as the mainstream is under the thrall of those who can't take a joke and who believe violence is the only way to solve anything, it will remain so.

Now, as far as the South Park issue goes, if it's not a joke, then CC is the biggest bunch of pussies ever. Parody Jesus, Mormons, and all kinds of other religious and secular icons, but piss off a Muslim? Heaven forfend! Well fuck that. Islam shows its true colors every time their fringe overreacts to a stupid cartoon or something someone says that, while a joke, has the kernel of truth in it (as most good jokes do). Then the supposed moderates do nothing about it. What's the first thing that happens when some Christian fringe element does something egregious? The Christian mainstream reminds us all that the "average" Christian isn't like that. Where's the Muslim equivalent?

Fuck Islam if it can't take a joke. Fuck it right in the ear.
Actually, every time there is an extremist outlash, the "moderates" do try to discredit them and claim that they practice a peaceful religion, just like the Christians in the US take no responsibility to the actions of the whackjobs. But what interest would it serve for the Western media to actually inform its sheep of that? None at all. They need many of us to continue believing that Islam is a religion of hypocrasy and violence, otherwise the fear may diminish.

Simonist']But you didn't end it. You gave us your opinion. I consider your opinion wrong in many counts. But, as you can't entirely argue opinion, I'll respect you just enough to not accuse you of ignoring most of the other posts made in this thread, and give the benefit of the doubt that you just chose to ignore the points made that already contradicted your points.

The only one that I really feel the need to touch on is your statement of "maturity" in the light of the protests and violent reactions. First of all, just because somebody protests does not mean they're a member of the violent extreme. They should not all be "thrown in a well" because, well, there are varying degrees of rage and indignation -- those who merely protested, chose to express themselves in a peaceful way. Shame on you for judging them. As for "maturity", it's not an issue of them being immature. One of the key tennets of their religion, which defines their way of life over there, was violated by the Western world, which many of them, extreme or not, likely already consider to be against them (which we pretty much are). For them to disagree with the fact that their religion was completely disrepsected and violated isn't an immature thing to do.
Well, if that's the case, where are the protests whenever some Islamic cleric labels the West as "Satan"? Nowhere. Why? We just don't give a shit what anyone else thinks. We're secure in our whatever it is -- religions, secular aspirations, you name it -- enough to be able to hear someone debase our institutions and either laugh right along or dismiss it as a buncha shit. Muslims, on average, can't seem to do that. This is their problem, not ours.

Because Blacks aren't apes, primarily.

Mainstream Islam, however, is violent. So long as the mainstream is under the thrall of those who can't take a joke and who believe violence is the only way to solve anything, it will remain so.Mainstream Islam is violent? Do you have statistics to prove this?

Because Blacks aren't apes, primarily.

Mainstream Islam, however, is violent. So long as the mainstream is under the thrall of those who can't take a joke and who believe violence is the only way to solve anything, it will remain so.
So you admit you have double standard. Making fun of Blacks in horrible ways is off limits, but doing the same to Muslims is a-ok and they shouldnt get all worked up about it right?

As many as it takes to show the world how fucked up it is to react with violence when none was offered you. I'd die for that.
well good for you

now

how many lives of people who are NOT you and NOT the person who was offended is it worth? how many other people's lives is one mohammed joke worth?

Simonist']Actually, every time there is an extremist outlash, the "moderates" do try to discredit them and claim that they practice a peaceful religion, just like the Christians in the US take no responsibility to the actions of the whackjobs.
*snip*
But not nearly enough or loud enough. You'd think Saudi Arabia, who's been sucking the US Government teat for decades would be "moderate" enough to say, "aw, they're just overreacting, here's some oil." But no, we get no help from our supposed friends.

Mainstream Islam is violent? Do you have statistics to prove this?
Likely not, nor does s/he have any personal experience in the matter to back it up. Probably just another ill-informed assumption of the well-protected American.

If I had the money to do so, I'd make everybody in that position go live at least six months in the Middle East until they start looking at things through the eyes of logic.

well good for you

now

how many lives of people who are NOT you and NOT the person who was offended is it worth? how many other people's lives is one mohammed joke worth?
As many as it takes. Period. Go sell your fear somewhere else. Freedom is worth dying for or it's worthless.

Mainstream Islam is violent? Do you have statistics to prove this?
How does a statistic prove that? Look around.

But not nearly enough or loud enough. You'd think Saudi Arabia, who's been sucking the US Government teat for decades would be "moderate" enough to say, "aw, they're just overreacting, here's some oil." But no, we get no help from our supposed friends.
How is it their responsibility to give us something because they're ashamed of people who are loosely affiliated with them? If I get sucker-punched by Jew, I don't run to the next Jew I know and demand $20.

Simonist']Likely not, nor does s/he have any personal experience in the matter to back it up. Probably just another ill-informed assumption of the well-protected American.

If I had the money to do so, I'd make everybody in that position go live at least six months in the Middle East until they start looking at things through the eyes of logic.
Assume all you like, child. Have you been to Saudi? I have. They -- well, okay, the MEN -- really seemed to enjoy the capitalist lifestyle. They also seemed to enjoy it to the point where they'd be reluctant to lose it by taking a stand. They have their own families to worry about.

Simonist']But you didn't end it. You gave us your opinion. I consider your opinion wrong in many counts. But, as you can't entirely argue opinion, I'll respect you just enough to not accuse you of ignoring most of the other posts made in this thread, and give the benefit of the doubt that you just chose to ignore the points made that already contradicted your points.

The only one that I really feel the need to touch on is your statement of "maturity" in the light of the protests and violent reactions. First of all, just because somebody protests does not mean they're a member of the violent extreme. They should not all be "thrown in a well" because, well, there are varying degrees of rage and indignation -- those who merely protested, chose to express themselves in a peaceful way. Shame on you for judging them. As for "maturity", it's not an issue of them being immature. One of the key tennets of their religion, which defines their way of life over there, was violated by the Western world, which many of them, extreme or not, likely already consider to be against them (which we pretty much are). For them to disagree with the fact that their religion was completely disrepsected and violated isn't an immature thing to do.

I disagree, and feel that when their religion forces them to act this way, if it is indeed the religion itself that influences them so, then we are at an impasse and have no choice but to retaliate accordingly. We do a legal criticism, they kill people, we kill them and end it. It -is- immature, because regardless of what tenant of their way of life it happens to be, it's stupid. Yes, I said it, it's stupid. It's dogma, and it shouldn't result in the death of -anyone-, end of story.

It may seem like opinion, but no, it's really just an enforcement of civility and understanding and law where it clashes against religious dogma and overzealous followers of a tenant that seems to have no grounds whatsoever.

If jews had a massive riot in America over SP making fun of them (which they do very often) and people were killed, do you think we could stand for that? Hell no! It's not right morally, ethically, logically, socially, lawfully, or universally in any way. It's not correct AT ALL, in no way! I don't know how much farther I can stretch this and try to get my point across - at no point in time should any one be killed for something a piece of media (cartoon, comic, tv show) said about something you just happen to be affiliated with.

None. No instance. Ever. It's -never- justified. Therefore, it should be fought, tooth and nail, by those who know better and enforce logic and civility.

As many as it takes. Period. Go sell your fear somewhere else. Freedom is worth dying for or it's worthless.
So you support the death of innocent people over a joke? wow. Are you willing to die over a joke?

Assume all you like, child. Have you been to Saudi? I have. They -- well, okay, the MEN -- really seemed to enjoy the capitalist lifestyle. They also seemed to enjoy it to the point where they'd be reluctant to lose it by taking a stand. They have their own families to worry about.
Been to both Jordan and Armenia, and my uncle has been living in Saudi Arabia for three years, after another year and a half in Kuwait. But you know, God knows you probably know WAY more than me, or the rest of my family who's been over there, and lived over there, or anybody who moved here from over there......after all, your self-fulfilling bias is completely justified, right?

As many as it takes. Period. Go sell your fear somewhere else. Freedom is worth dying for or it's worthless.
i glad comedy central is more responsible than you are.

I do think. You obviously do not. Explain the difference between you censoring yourself out of concern for offending someone and Comedy Central censoring this image out of concern for offending people.
They don't give a shit about not offending people. As if you watched south park you would know. Intead the executives are afraid that because of their executive status people will come after them. Therefore, they are cowards.

How does a statistic prove that? Look around.:rolleyes:
I do. I don't see any evil muslims trying to kill me or throw rocks.

Oh wait, do you mean the ones on the news? On the channels that make money off of sensationalist pictures? You honestly think they'd make money off of showing "mainstream Islam" if it wasn't violent?

So you admit you have double standard. Making fun of Blacks in horrible ways is off limits, but doing the same to Muslims is a-ok and they shouldnt get all worked up about it right?
No. No. No. Try again.

Blacks aren't apes. Thus, even comedy suggesting it isn't comedy, it's ignorance. Suggesting Blacks like fried chicken, however (like comedian Carlos Mencia), is fair game. This isn't a double standard because I haven't compared Muslims to, say, camels -- because I know they aren't camels. However, when I see galleries of self-flagellating Muslims celebrating Ashura drenched in their own blood, I gotta think something's a bit off there.

:rolleyes:
I do. I don't see any evil muslims trying to kill me or throw rocks.

Oh wait, do you mean the ones on the news? On the channels that make money off of sensationalist pictures? You honestly think they'd make money off of showing "mainstream Islam" if it wasn't violent?
If by news you mean networks, then you've made the right point. If by news you mean PBS (Frontline), the BBC or Al Jazeera, then those pix aren't sensationlaist, they're what happened.

Well, if that's the case, where are the protests whenever some Islamic cleric labels the West as "Satan"? Nowhere. Why? We just don't give a shit what anyone else thinks. We're secure in our whatever it is -- religions, secular aspirations, you name it -- enough to be able to hear someone debase our institutions and either laugh right along or dismiss it as a buncha shit. Muslims, on average, can't seem to do that. This is their problem, not ours.

And because they react violently to insults, we should insult them.

I disagree, and feel that when their religion forces them to act this way, if it is indeed the religion itself that influences them so, then we are at an impasse and have no choice but to retaliate accordingly. We do a legal criticism, they kill people, we kill them and end it. It -is- immature, because regardless of what tenant of their way of life it happens to be, it's stupid. Yes, I said it, it's stupid. It's dogma, and it shouldn't result in the death of -anyone-, end of story.

It may seem like opinion, but no, it's really just an enforcement of civility and understanding and law where it clashes against religious dogma and overzealous followers of a tenant that seems to have no grounds whatsoever.

If jews had a massive riot in America over SP making fun of them (which they do very often) and people were killed, do you think we could stand for that? Hell no! It's not right morally, ethically, logically, socially, lawfully, or universally in any way. It's not correct AT ALL, in no way! I don't know how much farther I can stretch this and try to get my point across - at no point in time should any one be killed for something a piece of media (cartoon, comic, tv show) said about something you just happen to be affiliated with.

None. No instance. Ever. It's -never- justified. Therefore, it should be fought, tooth and nail, by those who know better and enforce logic and civility.
I think you choose to look past what I'm actually saying and argue over points that are of your own creation. I'm not saying that violence is justified in the least bit, all I'm saying is that those who took part in lesser protests and had absolutely no hand in the violence that followed SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED on the same scale as those who chose to injure strangers over such a trivial matter. But I stand by my conviction that defending the religion that defines your life, so long as you stay within the limits of what your religion preaches (ergo, this includes the peaceful protesters), is not a matter of immaturity.

So you support the death of innocent people over a joke? wow. Are you willing to die over a joke?
Look -- what do I have to say? Yes a million times? YES, for fuck's sake. My freedom is worth dying for, so is yours, so is anyone's. You act like if someone makes a joke about Islam, three innocent little kids will be swept off the street by a sleeper cell and hung by their colons in downtown Philadephia!

How does a statistic prove that? Look around.
I am and I dont see any evil muslims. Im starting to think you are just a troll or a sad, uneducated little man.

If by news you mean networks, then you've made the right point. If by news you mean PBS (Frontline), the BBC or Al Jazeera, then those pix aren't sensationlaist, they're what happened.I'm not denying it. I'm denying that's what's more likely than not happening in every muslim community in the world. "Mainstream" means it's a majority and I flat out deny that.

if we truly believe people are in danger of being hurt or killed or even threatened for something that's completely legal, then those that would do those things shouldn't be appeased and instead should be jailed. End of story.Unfortunately it is rather difficult to jail several tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of people, yet to be identified, from other countries. Besides which you can't jail them before they do anything to harm or jeopardize people, and afterwards it's rather too late.

We shouldn't tolerate ignorance at that level.Nor ignore it, since that just adds ignorance on ignorance.
The obvious choice to battle ignorance is education, not antagonism.. Just corrupt them with mass media, wikipedia and Harry Potter. (Ok, fine, it does nothing to stop people's ignorance, but once they hit the internet, they'll be too busy flaming each other to riot in the streets)

"But people will die!" People have been dying for free speech since it was labeled a basic human right - if they stop now, it might as well not be a right.Dying for your rights, or having other people die because of it, is rather a big difference.
You don't have the right to take liberties with other people's lives.

Does anyone else find it incredibly hypocritical and immeasurably idiotic that their response to a cartoon that made fun of the religion and stated that Muslims were violent people by religion and by nature - they reacted how? THEY BECAME VIOLENT.Yes, quite ironic that. But I'm not sure repeating the same fiasco will make it all better, or make any difference.
We already know this button sets them off. At the very least, find a novel one.

And because they react violently to insults, we should insult them.
Yes, we should, if that's the intent designed for the consumers of the product -- THAT'S US, not Islam. If Muslims think that South Park is akin to President Bush coming on the air and ribbing Muhammed, they're beyond stupid. Bet you anything Bush would laugh if he saw (or perhaps were allowed to see) the episodes.

I'm not denying it. I'm denying that's what's more likely than not happening in every muslim community in the world. "Mainstream" means it's a majority and I flat out deny that.
Ashura is a Muslim holiday. End of story.

Unfortunately it is rather difficult to jail several tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of people, yet to be identified, from other countries. Besides which you can't jail them before they do anything to harm or jeopardize people, and afterwards it's rather too late.

Nor ignore it, since that just adds ignorance on ignorance.
The obvious choice to battle ignorance is education, not antagonism.. Just corrupt them with mass media, wikipedia and Harry Potter. (Ok, fine, it does nothing to stop people's ignorance, but once they hit the internet, they'll be too busy flaming each other to riot in the streets)

Dying for your rights, or having other people die because of it, is rather a big difference.
You don't have the right to take liberties with other people's lives.

Yes, quite ironic that. But I'm not sure repeating the same fiasco will make it all better, or make any difference.
We already know this button sets them off. At the very least, find a novel one.
Oh, so you're okay with "finding a new button" to piss off the Muslims. You just don't like repetition. I get it. Thanks for the clarification. :rolleyes:

Look -- what do I have to say? Yes a million times? YES, for fuck's sake. My freedom is worth dying for, so is yours, so is anyone's. You act like if someone makes a joke about Islam, three innocent little kids will be swept off the street by a sleeper cell and hung by their colons in downtown Philadephia!
wtf is the matter with you!? freedom=/= irresponsible cartoon. btw, posting stuff like this will only discredit you on this forum.

Bravo to Trey and Matt in their flawless execution of the joke. I need to see this episode now.

No, YOU do.

I'm proud of (and thankful for) your military service, and as I've posted many times, much of my family is or was in the service.

But it ain't a world war of ANY kind until our own government acts like it by NOT giving away tax cuts, advocating sacrifice in the name of the war, FORCING corporations to pay their share, and placing the nation on a wartime footing. Wanting to play with our toys in the sand and still spending and consuming like tomorrow will never come is just plain stupid. Get off the patriotic bandwagon until Bushco gets on it and leads like a wartime leader instead of some jock in high school who's egging on his pals to kick someone's ass for him. He can't keep the fat cats greased AND lead a nation in war at the same time.
Ah, more tax cut phobia. You do realize that govt. revenue has actually increased quite a bit since the tax cuts right? Oh you didn't, ah well that's what you get for being idealogically blind. BTW, taxes on corporations do only two things. Limit the producing power of said corporation, and raise prices. Nothing else.

Simonist']I think you choose to look past what I'm actually saying and argue over points that are of your own creation. I'm not saying that violence is justified in the least bit, all I'm saying is that those who took part in lesser protests and had absolutely no hand in the violence that followed SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED on the same scale as those who chose to injure strangers over such a trivial matter. But I stand by my conviction that defending the religion that defines your life, so long as you stay within the limits of what your religion preaches (ergo, this includes the peaceful protesters), is not a matter of immaturity.

Then I agree. I wasn't talking about the peaceful protesters, though they tend to overreact by reacting at all because it's just a joke and they don't have to listen to it.

I was talking about the other guys. The violent ones. The ignorant ones. It's good to know we agree with eachother on both accounts, that the peaceful ones aren't as stupid as the violent, and the violent ones are idiots.

Look -- what do I have to say? Yes a million times? YES, for fuck's sake. My freedom is worth dying for, so is yours, so is anyone's. You act like if someone makes a joke about Islam, three innocent little kids will be swept off the street by a sleeper cell and hung by their colons in downtown Philadephia!Damn, there goes our surprise <_<

Ashura is a Muslim holiday. End of story.
But not all Muslims celebrate Ashura. As somebody who lived in Saudi, you ought to know that.

I am and I dont see any evil muslims. Im starting to think you are just a troll or a sad, uneducated little man.
Where are you looking?

And if I gave even a frisson of a shit about what you thought of me...well, I'd just be really fuckin' stupid.

The ones who come here, to the US, to start lives outside of the Mideast -- why are they here if it's all so peachy back home? I think they see intelligent women forced to wear beekeeper outfits and it makes them chafe. Since they can't chafe out loud back home without fear of immediate and unbalanced retribution, they come here.

wtf is the matter with you!? freedom=/= irresponsible cartoon. btw, posting stuff like this will only discredit you on this forum.

I respect his devotion to the basic rights given to us, and agree with him wholeheartedly. I don't feel he's discrediting himself at all.

Ashura is a Muslim holiday. End of story.Yes. But fasting and prayer aren't violent things to do. It's mainly the Shi'a that do violent self mutilation, and the Shi'a are a minority.

So let me get this straight. If the KKK started suicide bombing anyone who said their organization was racist and backward, you would be for leaving them alone? Somehow I doubt it.I was, and am, just saying that you should consider the consequences. And then choose, not just react kneejerkedly..
Saying they're racist and backwards won't change anything for the better, saying it, apparantly triggers a string of suicide bombings.
Well, the choice seems straightforward.
Don't set them off untill you've dealt with their capacity for terror.

Where are you looking?

And if I gave even a frisson of a shit about what you thought of me...well, I'd just be really fuckin' stupid.

The ones who come here, to the US, to start lives outside of the Mideast -- why are they here if it's all so peachy back home? I think they see intelligent women forced to wear beekeeper outfits and it makes them chafe. Since they can't chafe out loud back home without fear of immediate and unbalanced retribution, they come here.There's plenty of Germans that leave Germany now, but I doubt it's because things could be considered "unpeachy" over here.

Unfortunately it is rather difficult to jail several tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of people, yet to be identified, from other countries. Besides which you can't jail them before they do anything to harm or jeopardize people, and afterwards it's rather too late.

Nor ignore it, since that just adds ignorance on ignorance.
The obvious choice to battle ignorance is education, not antagonism.. Just corrupt them with mass media, wikipedia and Harry Potter. (Ok, fine, it does nothing to stop people's ignorance, but once they hit the internet, they'll be too busy flaming each other to riot in the streets)

Dying for your rights, or having other people die because of it, is rather a big difference.
You don't have the right to take liberties with other people's lives.

Yes, quite ironic that. But I'm not sure repeating the same fiasco will make it all better, or make any difference.
We already know this button sets them off. At the very least, find a novel one.

I'm not forcing other people to die for my rights at all. I'm just saying, they shouldn't be in any kind of danger anyway, and if they are for things that -I- do, then we need to take immediate action against them regardless.

I was, and am, just saying that you should consider the consequences. And then choose, not just react kneejerkedly..
Saying they're racist and backwards won't change anything for the better, saying it, apparantly triggers a string of suicide bombings.
Well, the choice seems straightforward.
Don't set them off untill you've dealt with their capacity for terror.

This is where we split on a key issue. I would, instead of cowering down and bowing to their threats, hunt their racist asses down for threatening and killing people and/or associating with those who did it.

Apparently we have different strategies.

Ah, more tax cut phobia. You do realize that govt. revenue has actually increased quite a bit since the tax cuts right? Oh you didn't, ah well that's what you get for being idealogically blind. BTW, taxes on corporations do only two things. Limit the producing power of said corporation, and raise prices. Nothing else.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight (and I mean that in more than one way).

Look -- I'm not saying tax corporations into oblivion. I'm merely daring to suggest that they NOT incorporate in Bermuda and avoid paying txaes altogether. Government revenue has increased? Then why the imbalanced budget? Oh THAT's right, the WAR. It ain't a war unless everyone tightens their belts. Where's the encouragement to conserve electricity? How's about Vegas kills the lights once a week DURING THE BLEEDING DAYTIME (I think Sunday would be a nice gesture)? How's about stores that are closed turn off their neon until they open and leave it off if it isn't dusk or darker? You know, simple, commonsense stuff like that? Hell, this nation altered TIME in order to save energy (Daylight Saving), where's that kind of national effort now? You'd think corporations would be falling all over themselves to be shown as pitching in during a time of so-called war!

There's plenty of Germans that leave Germany now, but I doubt it's because things could be considered "unpeachy" over here.
What?! Just the decline of their economy and rising unemployment, no biggie. Ever read anything?

I respect his devotion to the basic rights given to us, and agree with him wholeheartedly. I don't feel he's discrediting himself at all.
devotion to rights? If he was so "devoted to rights" then he wouldnt mind offensive cartoons or images of all groups, however he does object to certain offensive materials, just not those of Muslims. He uses freedom of speech and rights as a cover to attack Muslims.

wtf is the matter with you!? freedom=/= irresponsible cartoon. btw, posting stuff like this will only discredit you on this forum.
No, attempting to speak for the whole FORUM will discredit you. Nice try.

Freedom ends where someone else's rights begin -- absolutely. But the freedom to create and find an outlet for a joke about Islam in a nation where freedom of expression was fought and died for impinges upon nobody's rights. You simply don't have a right to not be offended.

Damn, there goes our surprise <_<
Didja see that, Alberto?!? Send in the FBI! Sic 'im! [/kidding]

What?! Just the decline of their economy and rising unemployment, no biggie. Ever read anything?And the Middle East has no problem with unemployment? Could that maybe be the reason? Or corruption? Or perhaps the oppressive regimes? It doesn't have to be for the reason you said.

Simonist']But not all Muslims celebrate Ashura. As somebody who lived in Saudi, you ought to know that.
Indeed. Saudis seem to be capitalists first, Muslims second. At least the ones in Riyadh. You still get Ashura in Medina and (and this was only anecdotal as I never got to go) Mecca, and certainly around the rest of the Muslim world -- not sure about outside the Middle East, to be honest. Anyone know if they beat themselves to bleed in, say, Malaysia or Indonesia? I'm fairly certain they don't do it in Bosnia.

scientologists can get pretty messy...

Did you see the scientology episode?
Screw them, and their legal measures.

Stone/Parker = 1
Scientology = -1 (for having Tom Cruise)

And the Middle East has no problem with unemployment? Could that maybe be the reason? Or corruption? Or perhaps the oppressive regimes? It doesn't have to be for the reason you said.
No, it sure doesn't.

Germans aren't coming to the US because of corrupt and violent regimes, however. They want jobs for the skills they were taught.

True, poverty can inflame religious sentiments, especially if you've nothing else to do or believe in. I'm just trying to figure out your point. Is it that when all you have is your religion, you tend to get defensive to the point of violence?

Did you see the scientology episode?
Screw them, and their legal measures.

Stone/Parker = 1
Scientology = -1 (for having Tom Cruise)
That episode was brilliant. I love the caption during the explanation of Scientologist doctrine (thetans, aliens, all of L. Ron's horseshit):

THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

Hilarious!

they dont want stupid fucks going crazy over a cartoon

it has happened before

*nod*

mmm this is good pasta salad

Indeed. Saudis seem to be capitalists first, Muslims second. At least the ones in Riyadh. You still get Ashura in Medina and (and this was only anecdotal as I never got to go) Mecca, and certainly around the rest of the Muslim world -- not sure about outside the Middle East, to be honest. Anyone know if they beat themselves to bleed in, say, Malaysia or Indonesia? I'm fairly certain they don't do it in Bosnia.Not really. Those bloody beatings are generally limited to Shi'a communities, i.e. in Iraq and Iran.

Not really. Those bloody beatings are generally limited to Shi'a communities, i.e. in Iraq and Iran.
Ah. The Shi'a are bad for business. No wonder it's largely underground.

Indeed. Saudis seem to be capitalists first, Muslims second. At least the ones in Riyadh. You still get Ashura in Medina and (and this was only anecdotal as I never got to go) Mecca, and certainly around the rest of the Muslim world -- not sure about outside the Middle East, to be honest. Anyone know if they beat themselves to bleed in, say, Malaysia or Indonesia? I'm fairly certain they don't do it in Bosnia.
It's not such a problem in Mecca, because as was stated, it's mostly the Shi'a that actually self-mutilate. Most of the Muslims in Mecca are Sunni, and not only do they celebrate Ashura for slightly different reasons, but they're more about fasting than beating.

And actually, religious self-mutilation isn't at all limited to Islam. If I can find that website I used a few years back for my thesis, I'll pass it along, it details a lot of the practices (both historical and current) of many of the world religions in reference to self-injury.

No, it sure doesn't.

Germans aren't coming to the US because of corrupt and violent regimes, however. They want jobs for the skills they were taught.

True, poverty can inflame religious sentiments, especially if you've nothing else to do or believe in. I'm just trying to figure out your point. Is it that when all you have is your religion, you tend to get defensive to the point of violence?No, my point is you argue in extremes. "Muslims come to America to escape the commonplace religious persecution of women," and such statements.

Simonist']And actually, religious self-mutilation isn't at all limited to Islam. If I can find that website I used a few years back for my thesis, I'll pass it along, it details a lot of the practices (both historical and current) of many of the world religions in reference to self-injury.Yeah, they nail themselves to crosses and whip themselves on the Philippines for Easter.

Yeah, they nail themselves to crosses and whip themselves on the Philippines for Easter.
.....Sure wish I'd known that when I was writing that paper....never came up in my research.....

*still searching for that damn website*

Yeah, they nail themselves to crosses and whip themselves on the Philippines for Easter.
That's right, there was some video of that on last night. I don't think they spike the feet, but the hands get it. They're trying to outlaw it, but Filipino fundamentalists seem to be the mentalist of them all...I mean, there are your southern US snake handlers and whatnot, too....

noone has the right not to be offended but it takes a real asshole to get angry at someone who doesn't want to offend others, or call them cowards for doing so. I guess some people just don't understand compassion, common decency or the need for compromise

No, my point is you argue in extremes. "Muslims come to America to escape the commonplace religious persecution of women," and such statements.
Whatever you say. If they don't come to escape madness, weird laws and persecution, along with economic hardship, why else come?

noone has the right not to be offended but it takes a real asshole to get angry at someone who doesn't want to offend others, or call them cowards for doing so. I guess some people just don't understand compassion, common decency or the need for compromise
I don't think anyone's angry. I also don't think Com Central didn't want to offend others. If that were the case, South Park would almost never air at all. The "cowardice" charge stems from opting out of their "equal opportunity offender" stance in deference to a perceived threat from radical Islam. They seem to forget that Salman Rushdie is still alive.

noone has the right not to be offended but it takes a real asshole to get angry at someone who doesn't want to offend others, or call them cowards for doing so. I guess some people just don't understand compassion, common decency or the need for compromise
Or a joke ...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight (and I mean that in more than one way).

Look -- I'm not saying tax corporations into oblivion. I'm merely daring to suggest that they NOT incorporate in Bermuda and avoid paying txaes altogether. Government revenue has increased? Then why the imbalanced budget? Oh THAT's right, the WAR. It ain't a war unless everyone tightens their belts. Where's the encouragement to conserve electricity? How's about Vegas kills the lights once a week DURING THE BLEEDING DAYTIME (I think Sunday would be a nice gesture)? How's about stores that are closed turn off their neon until they open and leave it off if it isn't dusk or darker? You know, simple, commonsense stuff like that? Hell, this nation altered TIME in order to save energy (Daylight Saving), where's that kind of national effort now? You'd think corporations would be falling all over themselves to be shown as pitching in during a time of so-called war!
Actually, if you knew the difference between cash and accrual accounting, you would know we are in much much greater debt than the budget shows. But it's not because of the military or the war, it's because of SocSec, Medicare, and the federal health plans. But you don't. The war and military budgets don't even count as 1/8th of the budget if you were to use accrual accounting methods for the entire US govt. budget in a single year. As for measures sacrificed, the ability of our country to wage war is a much, much, much smaller drain on our resources than it was in WW1&2.

Whatever you say. If they don't come to escape madness, weird laws and persecution, along with economic hardship, why else come?
For the wicked awesome party scene.

I don't think anyone's angry. I also don't think Com Central didn't want to offend others. If that were the case, South Park would almost never air at all. The "cowardice" charge stems from opting out of their "equal opportunity offender" stance in deference to a perceived threat from radical Islam. They seem to forget that Salman Rushdie is still alive.
did you miss the part where people have already died over this issue? its not a perceived threat, its a very real chance at re-opening barely scabbed over wounds. there is nothing wrong with not wanting people to die for "the right to joke"

Actually, if you knew the difference between cash and accrual accounting, you would know we are in much much greater debt than the budget shows. But it's not because of the military or the war, it's because of SocSec, Medicare, and the federal health plans. But you don't. The war and military budgets don't even count as 1/8th of the budget if you were to use accrual accounting methods for the entire US govt. budget in a single year. As for measures sacrificed, the ability of our country to wage war is a much, much, much smaller drain on our resources than it was in WW1&2.
Are you naturally pedantic, or do you do condescension yoga?

Looking after the needs of those unbable to help themselves (and yes, I know that's not always the case in social security...thought I'd save you the effort of rolling your eyes) should be a government charge. Rushing into an ill-advised war should not. I'd sure as hell like that "paltry" 1/8th back in the budget.

The point is, nobody is being asked to sacrifice anything, least of all those most able to do so.

did you miss the part where people have already died over this issue? its not a perceived threat, its a very real chance at re-opening barely scabbed over wounds. there is nothing wrong with not wanting people to die for "the right to joke"
And who has died specifically over the Danish cartoons?

EDIT: I maintain those "wounds" you cry about were self-inflicted.

Simonist']For the wicked awesome party scene.
Damn straight! Woohoo!

are they officialy recognized by the gov't? like on census forms and stuff like that?


the reason muslims have a problem with muhammed being depicted is because they are expressly forbidden to do so. that's a major thing in islam. all the art in islamic countries from around 1200-1600 show no beings, just designs. thye're not allowed to depict beings, be they muhammed or some random rabbit.

why arent people outraged over jesus taking a crap on bush? because jesus isnt the importnat part of christianity. the bible is. :rolleyes:

oh, and i may hate bush, but he does not deserve to be crapped on. not even by jesus. (holy crap! :eek: )
What makes you think that people ae not outraged over Jesus taking a crap on Bush? As far as I can see that is exactly what people are upset about, that it is all right for Comedy Central to make fun of Jews, Christians, Blacks, Hispanics, Scientologists, ect. but not all right for them to poke fun at Muslims, because some radicals might kill people over it. What kind of message is that, that if those christians who you hear bitching about SP making fun of Christianity went out an killed a couple people over it they could get CC to stop? That seemed to be the message the show was trying to get across to me at least, that it is hypocrytical to say its all right to make fun of christians, jews, blacks, ect, but not all right to make fun of muslims. Its either all right to make fun of everyone equally or no one.
edit: In hopes of avoiding being flamed, I will say that censoring the image in the hopes of avoiding violence does complicate things a bit, the problem being of course that it shouldn't be necessary to do that in the first place and the blame lies far more on those reacting violently than the reverse.

And who has died specifically over the Danish cartoons?

EDIT: I maintain those "wounds" you cry about were self-inflicted.
i dont care if they were self inflicted or not, a compassionate, responsible person doesnt start shit up all over again just because he can.

But tens of thousands of Muslims around the world continue to stage protests -- some resulting in deaths -- over the cartoons.

Two protesters were killed and 13 others injured, when Afghan police fired Monday on about 2,000 protesters who tried to enter Bagram Airbase, a U.S. base north of Kabul, The Associated Press reported.

In the Afghan city of Mihtarlam, two protesters were killed and three others injured when police fired on a crowd after a man fired shots and others threw stones and knives, according to the AP.

In the east African nation of Somalia, a stampede during a protest killed a teenager, AP reported.



http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/06/cartoon.protests/index.html

Are you naturally pedantic, or do you do condescension yoga?

Looking after the needs of those unbable to help themselves (and yes, I know that's not always the case in social security...thought I'd save you the effort of rolling your eyes) should be a government charge. Rushing into an ill-advised war should not. I'd sure as hell like that "paltry" 1/8th back in the budget.

The point is, nobody is being asked to sacrifice anything, least of all those most able to do so.
The above post shows that in fact you didn't even bother to look up accrual accounting. Those programs that according to you we 'need' are essentially in the long run a death knell for the country. In 2004, the government added over 3 trillion in debt from future SocSec and Medicare benefits that doesn't even count the over 1.2 trillion that they actually payed out. Every year they've been adding that amount of money to the debt. It's impossible to pay out long term and it's only going to get to be a bigger and bigger amount each year.

i dont care if they were self inflicted or not, a compassionate, responsible person doesnt start shit up all over again just because he can.



http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/06/cartoon.protests/index.html

That just furthers my point. When people riot and kill in america, we don't stand for it and bust out the SWAT team and the shotguns. Why would we think it to be any less outrageous when it's somewhere else?

Oh, also I'd like to remind everyone about the US's position on terrorism and negotiation: We don't. Terrorists (people who kill and overreact, usually for religious reasons) make demands while killing people, and we don't agree to them. It just sends us down a slope to where anyone can kill someone and demand something be changed and we do it so nobody else gets killed, but they keep doing it until they get exactly what they want everytime with everything.

It never gets solved until we stand up and say no.

Rushing into an ill-advised war should not. I'd sure as hell like that "paltry" 1/8th back in the budget.

Ya...and you know what? I'd sure as hell like all the wellfare and social security money put back in my pocket, but it's not going to happen.

Ya...and you know what? I'd sure as hell like all the wellfare and social security money put back in my pocket, but it's not going to happen.

Yeah but SS and Welfare is at least a good idea. It's just bad in execution. My nation has complete government-controlled... everything. Everything is free and luxuries are rationed out and bartered for.

War, on the other hand, is bad in general in almost any way you look at it.

I think it's funny that you have a problem with people expressing their religion in public, but you think that anyone who doesn't mock religion in public is a coward, Eut.

i have no idea if it was part of the joke or not, i dont watch southpark

but i dont have a problem with a company not being willing to have people killed just to prove they (the company) have the right to show tasteless and offensive jokes. how many lives are equal to one mohammed joke?

As many as it takes. If you won't say something because someone may be offended by it and kill people then Freedom of Speech is nonexistent. In America you have the the RIGHT to say whatever you want without fear of being beaten for it. Ostracized yes...physically beaten no.

Remember boys and girls, when you decline to mock any religion it's called "showing sensitivity and respect"... unless you decline to mock Islam in which case it's called "caving in to terrorism."

The above post shows that in fact you didn't even bother to look up accrual accounting. Those programs that according to you we 'need' are essentially in the long run a death knell for the country. In 2004, the government added over 3 trillion in debt from future SocSec and Medicare benefits that doesn't even count the over 1.2 trillion that they actually payed out. Every year they've been adding that amount of money to the debt. It's impossible to pay out long term and it's only going to get to be a bigger and bigger amount each year.And intelligent adjustments should be made. The logical step is a slow adjustment of the lower age limit to receive SS benefits.

However, the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress can be traced to a single activity:

Developing, maintaining, and using the world's most expensive military.

Remember boys and girls, when you decline to mock any religion it's called "showing sensitivity and respect"... unless you decline to mock Islam in which case it's called "caving in to terrorism."
exactly, well put

So...

Comedy Central pulled any reruns of the Scientology episodes because of the whole Tom Cruise deal, and the episodes continually made references to how you can either make fun of everything or nothing, really.

This is just a case of some members of the audience not being very fucking bright and seeing what was being said. Do you honestly fucking think that South Park can't make, or won't make, or hasn't made fun of Islam or people from the Middle East? Are you that fucking willfully ignorant in order to make your stupid fucking point?

The episode was a criticism to Comedy Central for caving to Scientology, not caving to not show Mohammed. But if you're a fucking moron who can't follow subtlty, or have a sabre to rattle (see what I did there?) I guess you can get fished in by something like this. I mean, if there already is a pattern...

So...

Comedy Central pulled any reruns of the Scientology episodes because of the whole Tom Cruise deal, and the episodes continually made references to how you can either make fun of everything or nothing, really.

This is just a case of some members of the audience not being very fucking bright and seeing what was being said. Do you honestly fucking think that South Park can't make, or won't make, or hasn't made fun of Islam or people from the Middle East? Are you that fucking willfully ignorant in order to make your stupid fucking point?

The episode was a criticism to Comedy Central for caving to Scientology, not caving to not show Mohammed. But if you're a fucking moron who can't follow subtlty, or have a sabre to rattle (see what I did there?) I guess you can get fished in by something like this. I mean, if there already is a pattern...
Or maybe those of us who did realize that those undertones were there, also realized that it had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand....?

Yeah, that's what I'm going with, as I fit into that particular mold. But thanks for your continued lack of faith in anybody but yourself.

Simonist']Or maybe those of us who did realize that those undertones were there, also realized that it had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand....?

Yeah, that's what I'm going with, as I fit into that particular mold. But thanks for your continued lack of faith in anybody but yourself.
So you're going to believe, then, that South Park doesn't make fun of Muslims or people from the Middle East in order to prop up this fairy tale?

So you're going to believe, then, that South Park doesn't make fun of Muslims or people from the Middle East in order to prop up this fairy tale?
Never, throughout this entire thread, did I even insinuate this. What is with you damn people putting words in my mouth, left and right?

I quit this for the week. I can't get a point made without people spewing bullshit on my behalf.

Simonist']Never, throughout this entire thread, did I even insinuate this. What is with you damn people putting words in my mouth, left and right?

I quit this for the week. I can't get a point made without people spewing bullshit on my behalf.
Honestly, I haven't been reading your posts. My first post was in response to the OP, you responded to it and I asked because that's the meat of what I was saying. If I was putting word in your mouth they wouldn't have come in form of a question, champ.

Whatever you say. If they don't come to escape madness, weird laws and persecution, along with economic hardship, why else come?None of those really apply to Germany, so there must be other reasons ;)

None of those really apply to Germany, so there must be other reasons ;)

Because a month of paid vacation isn't enough? :eek:

Which I sometimes do out of consideration for the sensibilites of others. Comedy Central has never been noted for having consideration for others as part of their approach to satire ... until now.

Not to mention that no one is threatening me if I decide to say "fuck."

If you spam post the word "fuck" 15 times, I will report you to the mods.

I don't think you have the guts.

Scores of postings on Comedy Central's "Insider" web log excoriated the network for the censorship decision, accusing it of cowardice and of "caving in" to Islam.

Why are you surprised? They haven't rebroadcast the Scientology/Tom Cruise episode, have they?

And intelligent adjustments should be made. The logical step is a slow adjustment of the lower age limit to receive SS benefits.

However, the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress can be traced to a single activity:

Developing, maintaining, and using the world's most expensive military.
Um, no, it can be directly traced to the methods used by FDR in the 30's. And then, of course, Johnson's 'great society' in the 60's. That and the fact that SS isn't the biggest problem. It's quite secondary to medicare. As well, the idea that the government should do your saving for you is just wrong.