February 07, 2006
I've been cruising a lot of blogs today, sampling the different reactions to Muslim Mania over those "offensive" cartoons picturing He Who Must Not Be Cartooned. I saw a lot of firey rhetoric: "Fuck 'em, the camel-humping, splodey-dope sand monkeys. They want outrage? Let's shove a few nukes up their unwiped asses and tell 'em to outrage THAT!" The Usual Suspects weighed in with their typical hand-wringing: "I feel their pain. We should expect that kind of outrage when we deliberately insult their religious beliefs."
I thought that this was a pretty good post, reflecting a lot of what I believe. We may be slightly more civilized about it, but we regularly display, right here in this "free" country, the same mindset as the Muslim mobs.
One regret I have is that this battle should have been fought and won in favor of intentionalism and individualism inside our own western universities years ago; instead, the victory went to our progressive academic collectivists, whose fidelity to PC culture, identity politics, free-speech zones, tolerance training courses, et al manifested themselves in a “tolerance” culture that now has the goverment looking inside individuals’ heads (hate speech, hate crime) and effectively chilling all speech by defining tolerance in an Orwellian sense of tolerating only that speech which is so bland and banal that it is unlikely to offend anyone. (Emphasis mine.)
Face it: The sad fact is that most people cannot handle freedom. They don't realize that their own personal liberty depends on somebody else having the right to offend them. Freedom is not for the faint of heart or the easily wounded. It takes a cast iron ass to live free. That's a quality sorely lacking in this country today.
Americans may not take to the streets to cry for jihad or fatwah when they get pissed off, but they damn surely flock to the government to whine and sue when they get hurt feelings. We're even rewriting our own got-dam LANGUAGE to make it more
...the Union isn’t in trouble for excluding people. They’re in trouble for not rewriting their constitution to “explicitly mention” some noisy people who, one suspects, are less interested in access to this particular group than enforcing the use of a wide bland smear of magic words that somehow insulates them from exclusion. --- James Lileks
The Union's crime: failure to mention explicitly "people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered." Yes, we actually take such neurotic, puling crap seriously today. And here's where it leads us:
If Chinese radicals were ransacking Western embassies because of a cartoon, and were backed by the Chinese government, we would be outraged, demanding apologies, severing relations, and so on. But when Muslims do it, backed by Islamist governments, we are supposed to take it on the chin, to "respect" their religious traditions, issue mealy-mouthed statements, etc. In many ways, this is the real offense: treating Muslims as if their violation of global norms, and thralldom to medieval conceptions of politics and religion, were somehow acceptable. --- here.)
To do otherwise would be judgmental and that's a horrible attitude-crime today. We can't think of these people as lunatic, fanatic, ignorant, blustering, seventh-century savages, even if that's the way they behave. We must "respect" their grievances, real or imagined. If we reached out and tried to understand them better, we would feel their pain. We need to modify OUR behavior to suit THEIR requirements lest we offend them.
Sometimes I think we're just as fucked-up as the Muslims, just in a different way.
du Toit had a good piece on thisPosted by: jb on February 7, 2006 11:06 PM
What the mainstream media seems to be overlooking is the fact that several Danish imam (with their own apparent agendas and motives) created three fake cartoons, and THAT is what the Muslims have their turbans in a twist over. And apparently those three "phantom" cartoons were much more inflammatory in nature than the 12 they are focusing on that were printed. Bear in mind the bruhaha is over three cartoons that NEVER appeared in a Danish -- or any other -- newspaper. The Muslims have been duped, betrayed by one of their own.
I'm waiting to see when everyone will stop brandishing placards and torching flags long enough to figure this out.
But I am a bit disappointed that most of the newspapers have been pussyfooting around the issue and soft pedaling their reasons for not showing the 12 cartoons.
Rob, you were a journalist. Tell me what you think the newspapers should do.Posted by: Joni on February 7, 2006 11:33 PM
I would publish them, without hesitation. First, because they are news and second because I wouldn't be intimidated by Muslim "outrage," which is even a BETTER reason for printing them.Posted by: Acidman on February 7, 2006 11:43 PM
When our "sensibilities" are offended, we don't launch a jihad or issue fatwas; we call lawyers, which is only slightly less bad.Posted by: Jim - PRS on February 8, 2006 05:17 AM
Kill a stinking muslim today and everyday.Posted by: TomCat on February 8, 2006 06:41 AM
Unfortunately the idea that there is no right or wrong, that only relativism exists, has taken deep root in our society, therefore having any kind of judgment makes one intolerant. The relativists could just as easily be called "bratty children".Posted by: Danielle on February 8, 2006 10:29 AM
They won't publish the cartoons - it's just too imflamatory and insensitive. But wait!
Here comes the virgin Mary in elephant dung - it's safe to roll that sucker out - it's anti - Christian after all.
Fuckin' cowards - they're just buying fatwah insurance.
Nice Mohammad picture post Rob - a pleasure to see the first amendment still intact some places ...Posted by: anotherKevin on February 8, 2006 03:03 PM
Post a comment
All content © Rob Smith