Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[Somey]

I think all religion is supertitious nonsense, without regard to whether it's Islam being practiced by Arabs in the Middle East, or Christianity being practiced by white male fundamentalists in the U.S. Bible Belt.

Glass probably doesn't get that most of this is Internet Racism, mostly harmless stuff made for the lolz, and not because some whites really think it's cool to insult Islam.

I'm afraid both of you are kidding yourselves. Even an atheist can be offended by insults that are based on religion, or the lack thereof - insults are insults, and the fact that it's based on religion doesn't make it a non-insult. Also, the mere fact that racism is expressed on the internet doesn't make it something other than racism.

But as I've said (and I realize it doesn't matter one way or the other what I say), I personally am willing to believe that people who believe that Muslims are being unreasonable about this are not "racists." Maybe that makes me a racist myself, but obviously I'd like to think not. The point is that not everyone believes this, and many of the people who don't are Muslims - especially now that Wikipedia has proven their point so abundantly and consistently.

[dtobias]

GlassBeadGame has a one-note tune he plays over and over again, about how evil "geek libertarians" (like myself) are. That's not a racist view (neither "geek" nor "libertarian" is a race), but it's as shallow and one-dimensional as he claims "geek libertarians" are.

[Somey]

GlassBeadGame has a one-note tune he plays over and over again, about how evil "geek libertarians" (like myself) are. That's not a racist view (neither "geek" nor "libertarian" is a race), but it's as shallow and one-dimensional as he claims "geek libertarians" are.

You're right - it's shallow and one-dimensional.

The real question, to me at least, is whether or not there's moral equivalency here. There's the usual argument over whether or not "geek libertarians" are geeks (or libertarians) by choice, or if they're born that way due to some sort of genetic defect. But it's not just that; have "geek libertarians" been systematically denied economic and social opportunities merely because of their attitude, quasi-ideology, and inability to dress in a way that makes them seem more sexually attractive to others? Are "geek libertarians" targeted for violence and hatred by bigots and extremists merely because of the color of their neck-beards and pocket protectors, or the number of copies of Atlas Shrugged they own? We know they're often unfairly stereotyped in the media, but are those stereotypes genuinely insulting, or do they in fact make it easier for them to "pass" in the larger society for what they want others to think they are - i.e., intellectual, wealthy, totally non-empathic - even if they're actually none of those things?

I guess I would say that "geek libertarian," like "cabal" and "Wikipediot" before it, is a term of art. Mr. Beadgame may believe the people so described are "evil," but I suspect that he thinks of them as victims of a pernicious and, yes, evil quasi-ideology just as much as he thinks of them as having been born evil, and using "geek libertarianism" as a justification for their misdeeds.

[dtobias]

You know, you sound just like homophobes do when they talk about gays. (Are they born that way, or do they choose their lifestyle? Are they evil sinners, or just mentally ill people who need help? Any idea that they're fine just the way they are is out of the question, of course.)

Interestingly, where I'm sitting now a copy of Atlas Shrugged is within touching distance (I just tapped its spine now), but so are a bunch of Isaac Asimov books, a Lord of the Rings box set, a Chronicles of Narnia box set (1970s paperback editions I've had since I was a kid), a complete set of the Harry Potter books, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series in a single deluxe-bound volume, Not Without My Daughter (an American woman flees Iran with her daughter after her Iranian husband refuses to let them leave), a Spanish-English dictionary, and the Official Associated Press Sports Almanac, 1974. Well, that last one might be useful if I happen to need to know who won the 1973 Super Bowl, and it escaped my mind that there was a free encyclopedia I could consult for that.

[The Joy]

I've only meet one Muslim and that was while I was in college. I wished him a happy Islamic New Year and he looked confused. "Oh, we don't celebrate that where I come from. We just celebrate the regular New Year." Whenever I meet someone outside of my "cultural comfort zone," I always struggle to connect with them. I always want to say to them "Just tell me everything about you, your culture, your history, your country, etc." Instead, I try to think of something I read on the Internet or saw on TV and ask if that is true. "So, you're from Germany. Did you know that gay marriage was just legalized there?" "Yes, they enacted that in 2000." Then the conversation ended on a strange note. It's awkward and I probably do come across as an ignorant, white, male, Southern American to some people. But I try to connect and relate! Some people asked the poor German guy if he was a Nazi. At least, I had the sense and common decency not to ask that. And I certainly didn't ask the Arab-Israeli student if he was a terrorist (though I'm sure he may have heard that at least once. His drunken roommate once asked him if he was the Prophet. Major facepalm.).

I've read a great deal about Islam, but, since I am not immersed in it nor converse often with Muslims, my perspective and understanding is narrow as is many people. I have empathy and I try not to intentional offend (except in cases of dealing with a complete ignoramus who cares little for decent dialogue and wants to be combative. I'm looking at you, Osama bin Laden). It's difficult to explain to those outside the United States and "the West" about freedom of speech, thought, press, etc. when they have never been exposed to those ideas (Heck, even Westerners/Americans forget about those concepts. I'm looking at you, PATRIOT ACT). I do not believe in putting up pictures of the Prophet for "teh lulz" or to intentional offend. However, free speech means that such things happen. Society can shun and denounce, but not legally stop that sort of thing (at least in the U.S.).

If what Tarc says is true and that the images are for education exclusively, then they should stay. Does a chaotic and mercurial community like the English Wikipedian community (which does have a record of making decisions solely to "screw" with people) have the maturity and ability to make the editorial decision to keep those images? I don't think so.

Does anyone have access to Britannica, World Book, or any professional encyclopedia? What sort of images are displayed on the Prophet Muhammad articles? Any of the Prophet?

[Mister Die]

Does anyone have access to Britannica, World Book, or any professional encyclopedia? What sort of images are displayed on the Prophet Muhammad articles? Any of the Prophet?

I know a guy who has access to Britannica, and he says no. I rather doubt any major encyclopedia would have a portrait (and I would bet my computer that they didn't suddenly take down portraits after 2005 or whenever.)

[Web Fred]

Can anyone tell me WHY the Islamic belief structure should take priority in this matter?

Whilst they are explaining that could they also please tell me if the situation were reversed how likely would the Muslims be to compromise?

[Emperor]

GlassBeadGame has a one-note tune he plays over and over again, about how evil "geek libertarians" (like myself) are. That's not a racist view (neither "geek" nor "libertarian" is a race), but it's as shallow and one-dimensional as he claims "geek libertarians" are.

Actually I think GlassBeadGame is rather racist, as in he's racist to generalize that white male geeks are racists and therefore should be disqualified from making decisions that affect other groups.

[GlassBeadGame]

Overall, your collective responses have been beneath the level to deserve much in the way of reply, which makes my point rather nicely.

Somey's post did make me chuckle.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Sat 28th April 2012, 2:00pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Delete please, if anyone still can. I quoted myself when I just meant to edit a post.


This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Sat 28th April 2012, 1:56pm

[dtobias]

Overall, your collective responses have been beneath the level to deserve much in the way of reply, which makes my point rather nicely.

Feeling smugly superior to everybody else may help your self-esteem, but it hardly constitutes a logical argument in favor of any of your beliefs.

[Web Fred]

Overall, your collective responses have been beneath the level to deserve much in the way of reply, which makes my point rather nicely.

So why reply at all?

We know why, do you?

[Fusion]

Because Muslims are overwhelmingly Middle-Eastern, African, Central-Asian, Filipino, and Indonesian/Malaysian?

In any event, "non-white."

Human beings in general are mostly Middle-Eastern, African, Central-Asian, Filipino, and Indonesian/Malaysian - in any event, "non-white."

But there are white people to be offended by religious images, not only white Muslims, who do exist (especially in Albania) but some Protestants.

If what Tarc says is true and that the images are for education exclusively, then they should stay.

If!

Whilst they are explaining that could they also please tell me if the situation were reversed how likely would the Muslims be to compromise?

No doubt it depends on the Muslims. There are reasonable, sensible ones and fanatical, bigoted ones. The fanatical ones make much noise so you may think they are the majority but they are not. Just like Wikipedians, actually.

[Tarc]

The range of opinion here spans from somewhat racist to viciously racist.

GBG, serious question. In your opinion, is this image racist?

If what Tarc says is true and that the images are for education exclusively, then they should stay.

If!

It is.

This is why you've been losing every argument you attempt to engage in, Mr. Tarc.

I haven't lost a thing, especially to an ignorant little cunt like you . Your pathetic argument has been nothing more than "we shan't offend", an argument bruised aside with ease.

I pity you bleeding-heart types. Truly.

[dtobias]

I haven't lost a thing, especially to an ignorant little cunt like you .

Namecalling doesn't help in winning arguments, either.

[Fusion]

In your opinion, is this image racist?

If I may give my opinion, it is not racist, just silly.

[Web Fred]

GBG, serious question. In your opinion, is this image racist?

Just ironic, not to mention slightly amusing.

[Tarc]

I haven't lost a thing, especially to an ignorant little cunt like you .

Namecalling doesn't help in winning arguments, either.

Yea, well you know what they say about internet arguments and the Special Olympics...

As for the image, sure, amusing and silly fit quite well. It is an American pseudo-cultural holiday largely promoted by white people to make themselves feel better about themselves and the history of race relations in this country rather than it having anything to really do with black culture.

It runs along the same lines as whiny twats like Somey and GBG, wringing their hands over something that has nothing to do with them, that they have little actual understanding of, and the presumed recipients of their charitable sympathies likely look upon them with at best indifference, at worst disdain.


This post has been edited by Tarc: Sun 29th April 2012, 8:03pm

[Somey]

...wringing their hands over something that has nothing to do with them, that they have little actual understanding of...

Oh, I think I have a LOT more understanding of it than you, or most Wikipedians for that matter. Of course, I could say the same for my cat. In fact, I could say the same for what's in the cat box.

However, you might be right about the indifference and disdain. Thankfully, that's not the point, nor do I care either way.

[Emperor]

Ah the classic "you're dumber than cat poop!" argument. This thread just keeps delivering.