[Bolt Vanderhuge]

Just for you :)

Whew, thank Ganesha for small favors. and ready handies

[Acheron]

They didn't avoid it. If they put Muhammad in it the headline would have to be "Five People Murdered Because Of This Image" which wouldn't be funny because five people did just get murdered over some shit like this. Instead they went with the "Hey Dumbasses, Check Out How Non-Crazy People Act" headline which is funny because it's rubbing it in the faces of crazy people.

Yes, all those extremists who read The Onion. I just can't take the fact they tip=toed around it.

I mean if some people are doing crazy, stupid things over a stupid film (and did over a stupid cartoon) I can't get around that this is the weakest, fluffiest rebuke possible.

Even this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...010_May_20.jpg

seems positively biting by comparison. Or maybe seeing Jesus with a dick doesn't impress me, I've seen a fair bit of 4chan. Either way, I'm not a big fan of The Onion's "scathing" satire.

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

Your persecution complex is so kawaiii <3 xooxoxoxoxox. What a martyr!

Thought you had me on your ignore list? Let this be a lesson to you/me; don't believe everything people say on the internet ;)

[midonnay]

lol there will be protest but I am out of this.

australian missionary and his children got burnt to death by a mob of hindu extremists >_>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Staines

[winter]

Yeah I understand, I feel I've stated that. But again the concept of avoiding the figure entirely in a joke in response to this, seems very weak. Yes, the picture couldn't just have Muhammed in it, the comic would have to be different. But avoiding Muhammed is kinda ridiculous, you've made your safe little satire while still letting extremists win. I recall the "draw Muhammed" day getting shit even on this forum. To back down and just draw everyone else and claim by omission it's ridiculous is sorta well cowardly. It's a statement without any substance.

You are being ridiculous. There is no way to do the joke with Muhammed in it. If you could safely portray Mohammed in the comic, then the criticism the comic implies is no longer valid. Besides ... Since a portrayal of Mohammed has gotten people killed recently, it's not funny to include him in here, it's just irresponsible.

[Devolution]

Eh, let's drop it, dudes.

Blood in the waters.

[not psycho]

Wikipedia says:

"According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated."

So that could be another reason why they didn't put him in the picture.

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

I dont get it... Is that angry Simpsons mob headed for the US embassy?

this got me!

[Acheron]

You are being ridiculous. There is no way to do the joke with Muhammed in it. If you could safely portray Mohammed in the comic, then the criticism the comic implies is no longer valid. Besides ... Since a portrayal of Mohammed has gotten people killed recently, it's not funny to include him in here, it's just irresponsible.

Oh shit, I forgot fear determines the quality of satire.

Good thing those stupid Christians and Jews are such good chaps, if they were more unreasonable we couldn't insult them as well!

[Timedog]

Wikipedia says: "According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated." So that could be another reason why they didn't put him in the picture.

Ohhhhhhhh shit

[CornBurrito]

Thought you had me on your ignore list? Let this be a lesson to you/me; don't believe everything people say on the internet ;)

I decided against it, because I dislike putting anyone on my ignore list. Plus, people generally quote the people I'd ignore anyway.

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

I decided against it, because I dislike putting anyone on my ignore list. Plus, people generally quote the people I'd ignore anyway.

You're probably just obsessed with reading people's quotes on here anyway, right?

[Cyan]

Oh shit, I forgot fear determines the quality of satire. Good thing those stupid Christians and Jews are such good chaps, if they were more unreasonable we couldn't insult them as well!

Again, the joke wouldn't make any sense if Mohammed was included. It would just be a random sacrilicious image.

[xbhaskarx]

Wikipedia says: "According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated." So that could be another reason why they didn't put him in the picture.

Shit just got real.

[CornBurrito]

You're probably just obsessed with reading people's quotes on here anyway, right?

I see what you did thar. And yes.

[winter]

Oh shit, I forgot fear determines the quality of satire. Good thing those stupid Christians and Jews are such good chaps, if they were more unreasonable we couldn't insult them as well!

You still don't get it. Christians and Jews aren't being insulted by the comic. They are being respected as rational actors with the assumption they won't go on a violent rampage after seeing the portrayal of their prophet. Muslims on the other hand are being treated like precious little princesses with the omission of Mohammed.

[Acheron]

Again, the joke wouldn't make any sense if Mohammed was included. It would just be a random sacrilicious image.

We good?

But again the concept of avoiding the figure entirely in a joke in response to this, seems very weak. Yes, the picture couldn't just have Muhammed in it, the comic would have to be different.

[mavs]

Again, the joke wouldn't make any sense if Mohammed was included. It would just be a random sacrilicious image.

No see it would be funny because...Muslims violence killings. ha ha. So funny! I wonder how many people are gonna die!

Acheron this is why the Onion is the Onion, and you're a dude on a message board. They write in service of humor, not the First Amendment.

[Cyan]

We good?

So... you're saying they should've done some entirely different joke, that was about Islam/Mohammed but not about free speech?

What would be the point?

[Acheron]

You still don't get it. Christians and Jews aren't being insulted by the comic. They are being respected as rational actors with the assumption they won't go on a violent rampage after seeing the portrayal of their prophet. Muslims on the other hand are being treated like precious little princesses with the omission of Mohammed.

Oh, I fucking get it. Don't patronize me.

The point is people of other religions can take it, but muslims can't.

However, again what kind of message is circumscribed in dear that other people will act irresponsibly? What kind of edginess does that have?

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

Oh shit, I forgot fear determines the quality of satire. Good thing those stupid Christians and Jews are such good chaps, if they were more unreasonable we couldn't insult them as well!

I don't think the publishers at Onion are fearing Muslims, since this comic itself is making fun of Islamic religion for not being able to take a joke: They made this comic to make a point that unlike Islam, these other religions have a better track record of taking an offensive joke.

That's all there's to this really, I don't see way you have to over analyse it.

Even though Muhammad is missing in that comic, they are still "offending" Islam, arguably more than the other religions.

[Kettch]

I'm offended that people think atheists weren't included.

Nothing is getting screwed all over the place in that picture.

[Acheron]

No see it would be funny because...Muslims violence killings. ha ha. So funny! I wonder how many people are gonna die! Acheron this is why the Onion is the Onion, and you're a dude on a message board. They write in service of humor, not the First Amendment.

Well as long as the message is accepted as cheap laughs and not held to a standard of actually defending any value or anything.

In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.

I'm glad you think it's not in the service of the free speech, as I said I don't consider it good satire. You appear to agree.

[Aylinato]

I don't think the publishers at Onion are fearing Muslims, since this comic itself is making fun of Islamic religion for not being able to take a joke: They made this comic to make a point that unlike Islam, these other religions have a better track record of taking an offensive joke. That's all there's to this really, I don't see way you have to over analyse it. Even though Muhammad is missing in that comic, they are still "offending" Islam, arguably more than the other religions.

*hugs Johnny*


I do not agree with the offending part..just seems kinda...like a very weak arguement

[xbhaskarx]

ITT people explain a joke to death because of one dude

[mavs]

Well as long as the message is accepted as cheap laughs and not held to a standard of actually defending any value or anything. I'm glad you think it's not in the service of the free speech, as I said I don't consider it good satire. You appear to agree.

It's not even fair criticism. How many Muslims in the USA went on a rampage? Or any other western country? Did anyone who thinks Islam has a monopoly on religious violence ever stop to think what else all these people who went out and rioted have in common? No, it was not a deeply insightful joke. It was a funny one though.

[Acheron]

It's not even fair criticism. How many Muslims in the USA went on a rampage? Or any other western country? Did anyone who thinks Islam has a monopoly on religious violence ever stop to think what else all these people who went out and rioted have in common? No, it was not a deeply insightful joke. It was a funny one though.

Glad we understand eachother.

Again, I don't think it's crap, it's just a bit disappointing.

[mavs]

Glad we understand eachother. Again, I don't think it's crap, it's just a bit disappointing.

Well the difference between you and me is that you seem to think actually drawing Mohammed would somehow grant it some sort of valid point. In fact it would just be the same erroneous thought.

[Cyan]

It's not even fair criticism.

It's perfectly fair. People are afraid to publish comics that insult Mohammed (or even depict Mohammed, FFS), but not comics that insult basically any other religion (ok, maybe Scientology because of the lawsuit threat).

It doesn't matter that most Muslims are perfectly ordinary people who would no sooner violently attack a guy over a comic than anyone else would. What matters is that there is a chilling effect, and it's in relation to a single religion.

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

*hugs Johnny* I do not agree with the offending part..just seems kinda...like a very weak arguement

You don't agree with the offending part of Muslims?

Well I don't know, to be honest I am not fazed my any religious or any sort of satire via comic form, (I draw comics myself and I've done my share of political cartoons back in the day)

so I cannot say how technically "offensive" this is to Muslims, but it's safe to say this comic's main intention is to put the tolerance and intellect of all other MAJOR religions above the Islamic religion. So in a way, yes it is offending Muslims.

Knocking them for blasphemy laws (which are real) is worse that the dicks on Jesus, Moses, and Ganesh?

But it's safe to say this comic's main intention is to put the tolerance and intellect of all other MAJOR religions above the Islamic religion. So in a way, yes it is offending Muslims.

I donno dude, if I thought my religion was the only righteous one and I took it to heart, and some non believers thought I was nothing more than a savage who murders blasphemers on the fly, I would still be offended, regardless of the dicks and pussies and cums on other deities.

[speculawyer]

Even though Muhammad is missing in that comic, they are still "offending" Islam, arguably more than the other religions.

Knocking them for blasphemy laws (which are real) is worse that the dicks on Jesus, Moses, and Ganesh?

[DeadFalling]

OK I'm in the same boat, Acheron. I'm going to go about it a different way though...

Please, explain this joke to me. I don't get it. My interpretation of it is that it pokes some (light) fun at Islam by drawing sexually crude pictures of other religions deities (and obviously not including Muhammad.) I guess this could be good for a chuckle for any non-extremist-Muslims, but it defeats itself because it will cause ZERO issues/pause for actual extremist Muslims. They don't care about indirect satire because it still obeyed their "rules" (Not actually showing Muhammad.) They still got their way....

[Acheron]

Well the difference between you and me is that you seem to think actually drawing Mohammed would somehow grant it some sort of valid point. In fact it would just be the same erroneous thought.

Clearly odious taboos ought to be challenged, broken and left on the ash heap of history.

If that taboo was drawing Muhammad, I see satire on the issue that avoids drawing it entirely completely in compliance with it. I think one of the biggest issues with why this is still an issue after the comic controversy in 2005 is people in the west are so willing to self-censor over it (see Comedy Central for South Park a few years back) I can't see why Viacom is criticized for backing down but The Onion is doing great work.

If you don't directly push back and create a new normal where doing such isn't a taboo, it will always remain in the grey area it is now.

[umop_3pisdn]

Isn't he supposed to be some reincarnation of Buddha (there are like 10 or so).

There are many Buddhas across the endless procession of world-systems, Buddha is just a title given to the one who has discovered the path to liberation and provided that knowledge for the benefit of other beings (so for us this would be the Gautama Buddha). But enlightenment means, among other things, liberation from the endless cycle of rebirth. It is entirely unclear what happens to an enlightened being after they die, but one thing that is pretty clear from the perspective of Buddhist doctrine (Theravada, at least) is that they are not reborn.

So knowledge of the Dhamma has to be lost for a new Buddha to arise, since it is essentially the act of (re-)discovering the Dhamma that defines a Buddha. As alluded to earlier this is often conceived of as occurring across practically inconceivable periods of time that constitute the life of a 'world-system' (sort of equivalent to our conception of a galaxy or the universe) whereby that world system comes into being, matures, declines, and then ends in cataclysm. This cycle, like that of rebirth, occurs endlessly with no beginning or end. A Buddha arises in this cosmological context out of a kind of spiritual necessity, they're seen as unique instances.

edit: Well, this is mostly what I've gathered from a more 'Theravada' perspective, I don't really know anything about the many kinds of Mahayana Buddhism.

[not psycho]

so I cannot say how technically "offensive" this is to Muslims, but it's safe to say this comic's main intention is to put the tolerance and intellect of all other MAJOR religions above the Islamic religion. So in a way, yes it is offending Muslims.

Or you could look at it as praising Muslims for successfully preventing blasphemous images better than other religions.

It depends. Does Islam view preventing blasphemous images as a good thing, or a bad thing? The answer to that decides if this is offensive to Islam.

[Devolution]

OK I'm in the same boat, Acheron. I'm going to go about it a different way though... Please, explain this joke to me. I don't get it. My interpretation of it is that it pokes some (light) fun at Islam by drawing sexually crude pictures of other religions deities (and obviously not including Muhammad.) I guess this could be good for a chuckle for any non-extremist-Muslims, but it defeats itself because it will cause ZERO issues/pause for actual extremist Muslims. They don't care about indirect satire because it still obeyed their "rules" of not actually showing Muhammad. They still got their way....

The joke being lost on them doesn't mean the joke failed.

[mavs]

It's perfectly fair. People are afraid to publish comics that insult Mohammed (or even depict Mohammed, FFS), but not comics that insult basically any other religion (ok, maybe Scientology because of the lawsuit threat). It doesn't matter that most Muslims are perfectly ordinary people who would no sooner violently attack a guy over a comic than anyone else would. What matters is that there is a chilling effect, and it's in relation to a single religion.

The Onion went beyond that by trying to choose figures that represent the entire rest of the world, seeming to imply that other religions are not a source of conflict. TBH I have a hard time even drawing a path from Islam to violence over depictions of their prophet when violence is magically completely absent in places where Islam exists widely. Seems like there is an invalid proposition somewhere if that is possible.

[Cyan]

The Onion went beyond that by trying to choose figures that represent the entire rest of the world, seeming to imply that other religions are not a source of conflict. TBH I have a hard time even drawing a path from Islam to violence over depictions of their prophet when violence is magically completely absent in places where Islam exists widely. Seems like there is an invalid proposition somewhere if that is possible.

Are publishers afraid to put out comics depicting Mohammed or not? That's really the only question here, because that's what the joke is based on.

[mavs]

Are publishers afraid to put out comics depicting Mohammed or not? That's really the only question here, because that's what the joke is based on.

Is it? By omitting the entire population of adherents to Islam from the category of non-murderers they seem to be making a statement about Islam itself.

[HK-47]

Haha, oh God! you really want to go there in this thread eh? some fuckin people! Fuck it let's go... What's your take on transgenders?

My take is that sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things.

[Cyan]

Is it? By omitting the entire population of adherents to Islam from the category of non-murderers they seem to be making a statement about Islam itself.

I'm honestly scratching my head at this. I'm not sure how you got this ridiculously broad statement about all Muslims out of this cartoon/article.

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

Or you could look at it as praising Muslims for successfully preventing blasphemous images better than other religions. It depends. Does Islam view preventing blasphemous images as a good thing, or a bad thing? The answer to that decides if this is offensive to Islam.

The bolded is absurd! Murdering people (fear) isn't exactly "successfully preventing blasphemous images" to be displayed of a particular religion.

This comic is simply singling out Islam as a violent religion, and it's doing this to it's audience, weather it's audience is Islam or the rest of the world, is irrelevant.

My take is that sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things.

That is true, I've been in enough transgender related threads here on GAF to know this, that was a joke post to rile up people from before, we're done with that...let's move on mate, shall we?

I see what you did thar.

Yeeeah.. It's just too bad you didn't see what I was doing in my previous posts.

[pottuvoi]

oh my god

Oh your gods.

[mavs]

I'm honestly scratching my head at this. I'm not sure how you got this ridiculously broad statement about all Muslims out of this cartoon/article.

The cartoon doesn't say anything like that. It's this part in the article:

Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.

Which makes an obvious omission and alludes to a different scenario, but I consider it misleading because it deemphasizes the same reaction in that other scenario.

[Magni]

Is it? By omitting the entire population of adherents to Islam from the category of non-murderers they seem to be making a statement about Islam itself.

Are you Muslim? Cause if so you're proving their point of not being able to take a joke and laugh it off.

[mavs]

Are you Muslim? Cause if so you're proving their point of not being able to take a joke and laugh it off.

No, of course not.

[Kettch]

Ahaha, this thread is hilarious. Should hold me over until Colbert gets back.

[Emitan]

Love All Around! HOORAY!

omg hahahaha

[Mariolee]

Yes, all those extremists who read The Onion. I just can't take the fact they tip=toed around it. I mean if some people are doing crazy, stupid things over a stupid film (and did over a stupid cartoon) I can't get around that this is the weakest, fluffiest rebuke possible. Even this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...010_May_20.jpg seems positively biting by comparison. Or maybe seeing Jesus with a dick doesn't impress me, I've seen a fair bit of 4chan. Either way, I'm not a big fan of The Onion's "scathing" satire.

I don't see how putting in Mohammad like you suggested would have strengthened it at all, because the whole point was to show how tame all these religions' "extremists" were in comparison to Islam extremists.

[crazy monkey]

australian missionary and his children got burnt to death by a mob of hindu extremists >_> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Staines

i knew that thus comment.