Internet Censorship Continues Due to "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day"

So like here is the common sense question.

If the Islamic World tells the Judean-Christian World it's forbidden to jump off of a cliff, is some attention seeking moron on Face Book going to come up with "Jump Off a Cliff Day"?

How many people who normally have no interest in cliffs, or jumping, or jumping off cliffs are then going to jump off of a cliff out of spite?

This was not about freedom of press, this was about freedom to be intollerant and antagonistic towards others.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
This was not about freedom of press, this was about freedom to be intollerant and antagonistic towards others.

Unfortunately, that's a consequence of threatening and committing violence against people you believe have offended you. The bully gets his payback. At least this is a non-violent response.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
This was not about freedom of press, this was about freedom to be intollerant and antagonistic towards others.

Unfortunately, that's a consequence of threatening and committing violence against people you believe have offended you. The bully gets his payback. At least this is a non-violent response.

It is a button pushing response, where people (Judean-Christians) have been goated into (not by Islamists but other Judean-Christians) to do something that they would normally never do.

If you weren't inclined to draw a picture of Mohamed without someone pushing an emotional hot button that then prompted you to do it, you are then engaging in the exact kind of behavoir that is being used to illustrate why you should be a pawn that allows you to be exploited emotionally.

The tail wags the dog as usual on this one.

By the way if you asked me not to draw pictures of your girlfriend I would not do so as a matter of respect to you, not turn around and draw one just to annoy you or teach you a lesson.

A lesson you clearly aren't ready to yet learn as evidenced by you asking I not draw pictures of her.

It takes two to tango and as usual each side refuses to see how they make what does not need to be confrontational turn confrontational in ways that everyone then suffers from.

Yes freedom of the press does allow us the freedom to be a jerk, but ultimately it's the individual who decides to be a jerk regardless.

Whether the press was free or not, they would still be jerks and easily manipulated through their emotions to do something that they would not normally do, as part of someone else's greater agenda, that they rarely if seldom ever understand, as they rarely or seldom understand how they have been emotionally exploited and manipulated to react into doing something in the first place.





[edit on 23/5/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It is a button pushing response, where people (Judean-Christians) have been goated into (not by Islamists but other Judean-Christians) to do something that they would normally never do.

Maybe not, you're right. But this is cause and effect in action. Is it a bit unclassy and immature? Sure. But it is at the base level a harmless activity.

This is actually a necessary response. Had radical islamists not encroached onto our freedom of speech, that freedom would not have been used against them. This serves to redefine the line of respect between respecting one's religion and respecting one's freedoms.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


They didn't encroach on your freedom of speech.

Agent provocateurs with an agenda emotionally exploited people to react by suggesting that the Islamic World is encroaching on your freedom of speech.

In reality drawing and painting pictures is not speech it is expression.

So if anything it has to do with freedom of expression, and whether you are free to offend others or not by purposefully expressing something in a medium in a way, at a time, and a place you would not normally do so if it weren’t for agent provocateurs promoting the issue for their own agenda.

What the agent provocateurs is encouraging in reality is to be a pawn to their agenda by promoting the idea that being patently offensive on their behalf to express something through a medium and at a time and place that serves their agenda has some noble virtue or purpose.

The only purpose was to be confrontational and inflammatory in a belligerent way, knowing full well, that it is being aimed at and towards people who would normally find it offensive and in poor taste and judgment because of their pseudo cultural and religious beliefs, but would actually find it even more offensive as the sole intent in doing it at such a time and place with people manipulated into doing it who would not normally express themselves in such a way was patently meant to be provocative and purposefully so, with the aim at offending others, who in fact have done nothing to offend you in the first place.

It was the agent provocateurs that sought to offend you by manipulating and exploiting an emotionally prompted reaction in disingenuous ways to serve their own agenda.

So while some are worried that those in the Islamic East are pawns to a manipulative Islamic Agenda, they are busy themselves falling prey to a manipulative Judean Christian Agenda that is aimed at getting people to be confrontational and fight one another over these issues through emotional exploitation.

It’s called divide and conquer warfare and there is absolutely no virtue in it whatsoever, nor is there any virtue in letting others pick the time and place and nature of your battles in life because it suits their agenda.

I have never had cause to draw a cartoon of a religious figure in my life, and the truth is that the people who drew these cartoons did so with the intent to be disrespectful and offensive to others, not to ensure their own freedom of expression to express something that they normally would never, if they hadn’t been manipulated in mass to do so by agent provocateurs promoting an agenda.

As a drummer you should know better than anyone the principles behind ‘Driving the Band’ and keeping the beat.

Do you want the bass player to do it? Come on! We hate bass players!




[edit on 23/5/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

They didn't encroach on your freedom of speech.

Agent provocateurs with an agenda emotionally exploited people to react by suggesting that the Islamic World is encroaching on your freedom of speech.

Threats, realizations of violence and murder for drawing cartoons, making movies or writing books that islamists find insulting is most certainly an encroachment on freedom of speech. Demanding censorship of websites is also an encroachment on freedom of speech.

The source of this event was Seattle based cartoonist Molly Norris, who had no intention of the meme going viral and later retracted herself from the event, calling herself an "idiot". The "agent provocateurs" were the public at large. This meme didn't go viral because "agent provocateurs" exploited people. The meme went viral because the public was already fed up with islamic intimidation and this provided an outlet for them to participate directly against it. There is little to support the notion that this was an organized Judeo-Christian manipulative divide and conquer scheme as you've claimed.

reply to post by jujubug

Actually there's something called respect as well. ie. Respecting someone else's belief's and their role models. Not making a mockery out of them requires some level of understanding and ethics. What purpose does this Draw Muhammad day serve? Amusement? Get it from trashy tv shows.

But Trey Parker and Matt Stone the creators of South Park had death threats leveled at them by extremists. When Free Speech is threatened the best way to defend it is to express it, to use the right. These extremists struck first thinking that threats would force us to censor ourselves and set aside Free Speech and it worked against comedy central but the entire rest of the internet rose up to defend Free Speech and draw Mohammad. There is no reason to respect a belief that gets death threats sent to people.

Your ignorance has been dually noted and denied, that is all

Hindus have found a way to look the other way and agree to disagree every time McDonald's grinds up one of their gods into little pieces, cooks it up, then serves it to someone to eat.

Catholics have found a way to look the other way and agree to disagree every time somebody in China "commits murder" by practicing birth control.

Mormons have found a way to look the other way and agree to disagree every time somebody like me smokes a cigar, drinks coffee, or has a beer.

Why can't Muslims do the same? Why does everybody have to walk on egg shells so as not to offend their religious taboos.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

They didn't encroach on your freedom of speech.

Agent provocateurs with an agenda emotionally exploited people to react by suggesting that the Islamic World is encroaching on your freedom of speech.

Threats, realizations of violence and murder for drawing cartoons, making movies or writing books that islamists find insulting is most certainly an encroachment on freedom of speech. Demanding censorship of websites is also an encroachment on freedom of speech.

The source of this event was Seattle based cartoonist Molly Norris, who had no intention of the meme going viral and later retracted herself from the event, calling herself an "idiot". The "agent provocateurs" were the public at large. This meme didn't go viral because "agent provocateurs" exploited people. The meme went viral because the public was already fed up with islamic intimidation and this provided an outlet for them to participate directly against it. There is little to support the notion that this was an organized Judeo-Christian manipulative divide and conquer scheme as you've claimed.

Alright, name me a Muslim who has actually intimidated you?

Can you?

I can't think of one who has tried to intimidate me, not personally.

Political satirists using cartoon art to make politicized points are in fact political satirists using cartoon are to make politicized points. The politics of all religions tend to be deadly. How does one draw a character of a person who’s face is lost to history and why?

These events of Muslims threatening and intimidating non Muslims are highly exaggerated by bigots and religious xenophobes either for the purpose of religious politics or to fuel the deadly and very costly military industrial complex.

In reality they aren’t threatening or attacking us, we are threatening and attacking them.

Whether people drew cartoons of Mohamed as a goof, or to purposefully inflame passions still shows poor judgment and questionable taste, whether you choose to consider that or not, and it is highly doubtful any such people are displaying there renderings on their living room walls. In fact chances are they drew those pictures for the sole purpose of being disrespectful, threatening, and belligerent towards other people’s sensibilities.

Not the type of behavior I would be proud of or consider wise.

So my questions to you is which Muslim has personally threatened you personally. Which wall of your home do you proudly feel a need to display a cartoon rendering of someone’s religious prophet based solely on your imagination of what that individual should look like?

With all the problems are nation has, that people engage in this kind of nonsensical and counterproductive behavior as a means to make a ‘point’ is utterly amazing.

If by chance you deem to ask yourself some of these honest and probing questions with an eye to learn rather than defend, ask yourself too, what difference is there between Muslims being offended that someone would draw Mohamed for the purpose of political satire, and Americans who get offended when someone burns an American flag?

People are being emotionally manipulated on a grand scale, and that never works out well for the people who are.

It really is that simple.

I can assure you that the bigots and xenophobes who organized this on Face Book have such an agenda and the fact that the reporter had the good and common sense to understand her political satire served no productive purpose does say a lot now doesn’t it.

At least some people are capable of learning from their experiences.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

These events of Muslims threatening and intimidating non Muslims are highly exaggerated by bigots and religious xenophobes either for the purpose of religious politics or to fuel the deadly and very costly military industrial complex.

One thing seems consistent with your posts on this issue and that is the unsupported claims of organized manipulation. I'm sorry, but the backlash and resultant outrage associated with islamic death threats, violence and murders is not some grand conspiracy.

It does not require a personal threat from a muslim to realize what is at stake from this type of bullying and intimidation. It cuts right to the heart of freedom of speech and press and people realize this quite clearly without the alleged religious-military-judeo-christian-media manipulation conspiracy you allege.

I'll admit that the Facebook page creators were probably attention whores who exploited the meme for whatever personal benefit they derived from it. But the meme was in place prior to the page's existence and appears on plenty of other sites as well. The viral nature of this event was grassroots, came from the people and was not an organized scheme. And again, it is immature and provocative and will accomplish nothing but the public did gain a method of personal involvement in the issue - and it's likely why this went viral.

Originally posted by jujubug
reply to post by stars15k

 

Actually there's something called respect as well. ie. Respecting someone else's belief's and their role models. Not making a mockery out of them requires some level of understanding and ethics.
What purpose does this Draw Muhammad day serve?
Amusement?
Get it from trashy tv shows.
Please do not label this immature act of provocation as being Tolerant and Open minded and an act of freedom of expression. Have you read the comments on those pages? They hardly seem like they're from tolerant people themselves.
If people are ready to condone such acts then they should be prepared for a response from the other side. I'm not saying it's the correct response but really, what the hell was the point of all this?

Wow that's the worst argument i have EVER heard respect is EARNED NOT GIVEN only in islam could drawing a picture of a man lead someone to be killed or beheaded last i heard 100 people died from the danish cartoon and you want me to give islam RESPECT you have got to be kidding me. why get so easily offended? why threaten people with violence you cant hurt or kill an idea or freedom of expression and even if they kill people this time round (which I'm sure they'll try to) this is an annual event you cannot stop freedom of expression and it is futile to even try.

IMHO we should wipe out religion ALL KINDS with a mind bomb or something it makes no sense and is hindering mankinds progressive nature.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

They didn't encroach on your freedom of speech.

Agent provocateurs with an agenda emotionally exploited people to react by suggesting that the Islamic World is encroaching on your freedom of speech.

Threats, realizations of violence and murder for drawing cartoons, making movies or writing books that islamists find insulting is most certainly an encroachment on freedom of speech. Demanding censorship of websites is also an encroachment on freedom of speech.

The source of this event was Seattle based cartoonist Molly Norris, who had no intention of the meme going viral and later retracted herself from the event, calling herself an "idiot". The "agent provocateurs" were the public at large. This meme didn't go viral because "agent provocateurs" exploited people. The meme went viral because the public was already fed up with islamic intimidation and this provided an outlet for them to participate directly against it. There is little to support the notion that this was an organized Judeo-Christian manipulative divide and conquer scheme as you've claimed.

Alright, name me a Muslim who has actually intimidated you?

Can you?

I can't think of one who has tried to intimidate me, not personally.

Political satirists using cartoon art to make politicized points are in fact political satirists using cartoon are to make politicized points. The politics of all religions tend to be deadly. How does one draw a character of a person who’s face is lost to history and why?

These events of Muslims threatening and intimidating non Muslims are highly exaggerated by bigots and religious xenophobes either for the purpose of religious politics or to fuel the deadly and very costly military industrial complex.

In reality they aren’t threatening or attacking us, we are threatening and attacking them.

Whether people drew cartoons of Mohamed as a goof, or to purposefully inflame passions still shows poor judgment and questionable taste, whether you choose to consider that or not, and it is highly doubtful any such people are displaying there renderings on their living room walls. In fact chances are they drew those pictures for the sole purpose of being disrespectful, threatening, and belligerent towards other people’s sensibilities.

Not the type of behavior I would be proud of or consider wise.

So my questions to you is which Muslim has personally threatened you personally. Which wall of your home do you proudly feel a need to display a cartoon rendering of someone’s religious prophet based solely on your imagination of what that individual should look like?

With all the problems are nation has, that people engage in this kind of nonsensical and counterproductive behavior as a means to make a ‘point’ is utterly amazing.

If by chance you deem to ask yourself some of these honest and probing questions with an eye to learn rather than defend, ask yourself too, what difference is there between Muslims being offended that someone would draw Mohamed for the purpose of political satire, and Americans who get offended when someone burns an American flag?

People are being emotionally manipulated on a grand scale, and that never works out well for the people who are.

It really is that simple.

I can assure you that the bigots and xenophobes who organized this on Face Book have such an agenda and the fact that the reporter had the good and common sense to understand her political satire served no productive purpose does say a lot now doesn’t it.

At least some people are capable of learning from their experiences.

I stopped reading/lol'd at "Muslims threatening and intimidating non-Muslims are greatly exaggerated" did you not see the riots or the reports of people being killed? or are you just ignorant and hope that we won't question you?

Personally i can't wait untill idiots like you learn there is no god (no evidence = non-existence) and stop attacking freedom of expression and free speech.

Sorry for double post

[edit on 23-5-2010 by rationaluser]

i thought draw mahamet day was hillarious!
if those moslims dont liek it, jsut go somwhere else and take the hatred and terrorist attacks with you!~

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

One thing seems consistent with your posts on this issue and that is the unsupported claims of organized manipulation. I'm sorry, but the backlash and resultant outrage associated with islamic death threats, violence and murders is not some grand conspiracy.

Everything is a conspiracy my friend.

The fact that you haven't actually found opportunity to directly answer any of my sincere and earnest questions actually illustrates that.

The truth is that because these things don't directly effect you, because these things aren't actually being perpetrated against you, all you can do is actually speak of other things, or have to speak to the fact, that you can't actually answer the questions I have put to you, because you have no real answer for them.

It is all a conspiracy and a manipulation, one that in fact dates back thousands of years and is still on going.

People love to create drama, and spectacle where there is in fact none, and they are manipulted into doing that, by people who do conspire to take advantage of that aspect of human nature, for power, control and profit.

Tis a rather sad and peculiar thing to be sure.

reply to post by rationaluser

I stopped reading/lol'd at "Muslims threatening and intimidating non-Muslims are greatly exaggerated" did you not see the riots or the reports of people being killed? or are you just ignorant and hope that we won't question you?

Personally i can't wait untill idiots like you learn there is no god (no evidence = non-existence) and stop attacking freedom of expression and free speech.

What riots would those be and what led to these riots friend.

Unlike you I actually don't stop reading, and while reading your post I noticed it is absent of any reference or source for what it is you are talking about.

Though I must confess the fact that you don't actually know that I am an agnostic, and speak out against ALL RELIGIOUS MANIPULATIONS and not just those of one sect, tends to illustrate you are someone who makes absolute assumptions in absence of any credible research, knowledge or fact.

Some would say that is rather idiotic.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Everything is a conspiracy my friend.

Sez U

The fact that you haven't actually found opportunity to directly answer any of my sincere and earnest questions actually illustrates that.

Indeed, a one man conspiracy to avoid questions

People love to create drama, and spectacle where there is in fact none

And people also react where there is a bunch of actual drama and spectacle, such as violence and murders.

Well then, I suppose if you can't get beyond belief that this is a conspiracy I don't suspect we'll make any progress on this matter. Thanks for the exchanges and have a great day!

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

And people also react where there is a bunch of actual drama and spectacle, such as violence and murders.

Who though has in fact been violently killed for drawing cartoons of Mohamed?

How is antagonizing people further actually going to curtail these undocumented and alledged incidents of violence and murder?

There are in fact people from all religions, and nationalities who commit isolated acts of violence in the name of God and Country.

Should we hold whole nations to account and whole religions to account for the random and isolated acts of a few people?

As far as I know a very limited group of people including Salmon Rushdie and a European Cartoonist have had death threats made against them for literary and satarical works that a small number of Muslim extremists have taken objection too.

Small number being the key word there.

To my knowledge neither of these people have been killed.

As someone who has spoken out against all religions in sincere and questioning ways I can tell you I have been threatened and called names by Christians, and Jews but have never been threatened or called names by a Muslim for questioning or speaking out against organized religion.

Shouldn't we also be applying the same standards to militant Christians and Jews as well as Muslims and contriving to make social statements through antagonistic means towards these other sects as well?

Here in lies the conspiracy, it is Christian, and Jewish fundamentalists who are trying to provoke a greater confrontation to lead to an even greater Holy Crusade beyond those currently being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and these groups are being prodded to do this by the Military Industrial Complex and the Banking Cartel that finances and profits off of the debt that war creates.

Yes in fact I do say it is all a conspiracy.

Where there is motive and opportunity and profit to be made, and there are motive, opportunities and profits to be made off of fanning and fueling and exploiting confrontations amongst the religious minded, there are going to be conspiratorial minded people who will want to conspire to take advantage of those opportunities and profits to be made.

To think otherwise is not wise.

The Internet is rife with organized and paid special interest groups and government entities that seek to promote and exploit and profit off of these things.

To think otherwise is also not wise.

I only say it is a conspiracy, because people in fact do conspire to do things like Cartoon day.

It didn't happen by spontaneous random accident now did it.



[edit on 23/5/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by UberL33t

The Ugly American is the title of a 1958 political novel by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer. The novel became a bestseller, was influential at the time, and is still in print. The book is a quasi-roman à clef; that is, it presents, in a fictionalized guise, the experience of Americans in Southeast Asia (Vietnam) and allegedly portrays several real people who are represented by pseudonyms.

The novel, taking place in a fictional nation called Sarkhan (an imaginary country in Southeast Asia that somewhat resembles Burma or Thailand, but which is meant to allude to Vietnam) as its setting and includes several real people, most of whose names have been changed. The book describes the United States's losing struggle against Communism - what was later to be called the battle for hearts and minds in Southeast Asia, because of innate arrogance and the failure to understand the local culture. The title is actually a double entendre, referring both to the physically unattractive hero, Homer Atkins, and to the ugly behavior of the American government employees.

In the novel, a Burmese journalist says "For some reason, the American people I meet in my country are not the same as the ones I knew in the United States. A mysterious change seems to come over Americans when they go to a foreign land. They isolate themselves socially. They live pretentiously. They're loud and ostentatious." Ultimately, the phrase "ugly Americans" comes to be applied to Americans behaving in this manner, while the positive contributions of the Homer Atkins character are forgotten.

But despite the dual meaning, the "ugly American" of the book title fundamentally does refer to the plain-looking engineer Atkins, who lives with the local people, who comes to understand their needs, and who offers genuinely useful assistance with small-scale projects such as the development of a simple bicycle-powered water pump. It is argued in the book that the Communists are successful because they practice tactics similar to those of Atkins.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is the book I first thought of after reading through the thread. The Ugly American. The title refers to the character, Atkins, who has the right idea for winning the hearts and minds of the people he is living amongst. Free speech is fine and all, but are we disregarding the sensitivities of those fellow human beings who have a real chance at changing the radical elements of their beliefs?

There is an agenda in promoting this kind of ignorance. It is a divide and conquer agenda that preys on the stupidity of its adherents. Would we all feel better if the Muslims just let us make fun of someone they hold dear and be quiet about it? How can we really understand each other if we get side tracked on fomenting hate and stupidity? We can't.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

And people also react where there is a bunch of actual drama and spectacle, such as violence and murders.

Who though has in fact been violently killed for drawing cartoons of Mohamed?

How is antagonizing people further actually going to curtail these undocumented and alledged incidents of violence and murder?



[edit on 23/5/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Wow son are you reluctant to google or are you technologically inept
web.archive.org...://www.cartoonbodycount.com/ read until you weep Oh and last i checked agnosticism was still the belief in god or rather a fence sitters version ... make up your mind

I'm a little confused with the point you're trying to make. =P