-
There you are, you see. Essentially repulsive.
But it's someone else's fault, I suppose.
-
Kraftwerk v Daft Punk.
-
:heh: Ah yes - the lovely Mandy. Didn't she go on to marry the world's hardest Belgium
(stiif competition I know) Pat van den Hauwe?
-
Indeed, like Elvis v Shakey
-
So you genuinely believe that most moderate muslims who object to these depictions do not have any
motive for doing so that can be directly traced back to what is written in their holy book?
Wow.
-
I know a fair few muslims, mate
Obviously, I've not asked them all but the ones I have usually just seem a bit exasperated by the whole business.
You seem to want to sew division where I genuinely dont think there is any. There are enough people trying to do that, and doing it better, like ISIS, the govt, plus a million others.
Carry on doing their work if you like.
-
No double standards here, oh no
-
Comedy Central bottled it, though, didn't they? Charlie Hebdo didn't.
As a consequence, there were very different results.
-
The pressure is beginning to tell, I'm afraid.
Basically, Leicester City's season ended weeks ago once they avoided relegation. They can just enjoy themselves now. Spurs will've done well just by finishing so high up the table.
We, on the other hand ..
-
No, that was the latest one. The original passed off without comment
And was shown time and time again up until the danish furore kicked off.
They actually had a bigger problem with depicting Tom Cruise in a cupboard.
-
Also, you don't defend anyone's right to do anything by equivocating in the way you have.
You can't say 'I defend their right to do it, but they shouldn't have done it' because your equivocation implies blame and serves to obfuscate and excuse the egregious wrong done to people who had never done anything more than draw pictures and write sentence by men with automatic weapons.
Besides, if your instinct after an event like that is to criticise the victim, your priorities are all to f**k.
-
There is no division. Right.
There are endless credible polls that haven’t been conducted by an intern at the Sun that show that support for Isis in countries across the Middle East and beyond is vast. We know that 6,000 European nationals have gone to fight for them. We know that more British muslims have gone to fight for Isis than have joined the British Army. We know that those who are prepared to kill us and themselves include both impoverished and western-educated Allans.
No division. Sure.
-
So because you agree for the reasons for something you suspend all critical faculties?
That makes no sense. My original post, when challenged by Monty, stated that I agreed they should be able to do it but their doing of it was a bit crap.
-
No. They censored the image in the 2006 episode Cartoon Wars II, replacing the image of Mohammed
a black title card. In other words, they bottled it.
-
The super friends episode they didnt though
-
We have failed.
But it's okay.
Elneny has brought a new dimension to midfield and Iwobi looks lively up front so it will all be very different next year.
-
But, as others have pointed out, your sudden moral rectitude on this issue is a rather substantial
departure from your attitude to pretty much anything else.
And we are understandably asking ourselves why that is.
-
For me and mine there isnt, what do you want me to say?
Though I do think the british army one is very telling though. Can you see why that might be the case? I mean, given for most of the living memory of any potential recruit we've been bombing their people into dust.
-
BECAUSE IT WASNT FUNNY!
Jesus, sorry christians, how many times?
-
Maybe. I don't think anyone's disputing the maths
by this stage, but others do seem more champion-like than us just now.
-
You realise how weak and unsatisfactory that response looks to anyone reading this, right?
-
Right. In the pre-9/11 episode when it was still pretty niche and tensions were nowhere near as high
they used an image of Mohammed. In other words, when they were probably not even aware that this was offensive they did it, but when there was actually something at stake, they bottled it.
You see what I'm saying about the need to exercise the right or it going into abeyance?
-
George is an only child, don't forget; no self-awareness whatsoever.
-
I imagine your infant son could count all the f**ks I give
If either the danish cartoons or the CH stuff were actually funny they would have been a lot easier to use as a debate to at least move things forward a bit. As it were they were rudimentary, crude and well, a bit ****.
I mean, look at this stuff. It wouldnt make it into the Profanasaurus end of Viz.
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/upl...bdo-covers.png
-
Yes, not joining the British Army could certainly be held up as a laudable, principled act by
someone who objects to Britain’s foreign policy. Not joining the British Army and joining Isis? Not so much.
-
And they showed that episode up until the Copenhagen stuff kicked off
Matt and Trey, the creators of south park, threatened to - and even did - leave CC over that but they were able to find a compromise eventually.
-
I know. And it rather proves my point - namely that it is all too easy to rationalise such a
capitulation as anything other than cowardice (moral and physical), but ultimately that is what it comes down to. Comedy Central's decision was rational and in some lights sensible, but it ultimately meant yet another 'offensive' voice was silenced not by argument, but by the threat of violence.
And that's why it doesn't matter that Charlie Hebdo was crude and unfunny - they at least had the courage to cause offence when it was dangerous to do so. And, by doing so, they kept a freedom alive that others lacked the courage to maintain. And they should be honoured for it.
-
You do care. Otherwise you’d not have bothered engaging on the subject.
You simply have no explanation for why you object to the depictions on the grounds of bad taste yet do not apply this rule of thumb to any other subject.
-
On one hand I'm inclined to agree and I see where you're coming from
But **** satire does nobody any favours. It just makes the people agreeing with it look more like morons and those disagreeing with it look more just.
-
I said I dont care how weak or otherwise people thought my argument is
Like you, I'm not here to win friends and influence people. As I've said before, I object to them on the grounds they werent funny, and thus they were crass and rude.
If they were funny, and also they were crass and rude, then the crassness and rudeness would have made them funnier, a sort of shameful joy, but as it is they were ****. I mean really, really ****.
-
But they've been unfunnily rude and shit to a whole host of other people
but presumably you don't mind that because those other people don't award themselves the 'right' to take hysterical offence to the point of committing mass murder.
-
I was barely aware of them before the whole thing happened tbh
I wouldve liked it to be good, I really would. It would have made the whole thing a lot easier to get behind. As it was it felt like I was like defending Mac, the rarely funny but often racist Daily Mail cartoonist.
-
But if we don't defend the freedoms of people we disagree with, we don't defend freedom at all.
-
In fairness, even though they appeared to be asking for it,
I'm not sure the CH lads actually, seriously believed they were actually, seriously in imminent danger of being a,s AKed at their desks.
A small distinction but a crucial one, I feel.
-
Its worth lay not in its subtlety or its hilarity, but in its very existence.
South Park is infinitely funnier, cleverer and more subversive, but ultimately (for whatever reasons) lacked the courage of its convictions. Charlie Hebdo and the Danish cartoon fella were ****e, but they were there when 'better' satirists or humorists were being cowed into submission, so you saying they were **** satire is utterly beside the point. They made a political stand where others did not dare to do so. They drew a line in the sand and died by it. So '****' or not, 'funny' or not, 'crass' just doesn't matter.
Pretending we all have the right to say something that offends muslims, but never doing it because we're afraid is just a cowardly cop out. We don't actually have that right because we've abnegated it through non-use. Only those who dare to insist upon using that right make it real maintain it. Charlie Hebdo did and whether we like the way they did is immaterial.
-
Wasn’t there a previous Koran-inspired attempt on their lives?
-
Probably worth mentioning that it’s also eminently possible to offend muslims by not saying anything
at all. Sometimes not being muslim is enough. Or indeed not being muslim enough, for that matter.
-
That's it though, I do agree that they should be able to say that
My main issues is that, having decided they were going to do something that really needed to be funny if it was going to work, though "f**k it, this'll do" and put something out that was ****.
The documentary I watched recently put it across well, it had Palin, Chapman and Cleese really putting themselves through the ringer to make sure that Brian was funny, or it couldve all gone horribly wrong for them.
I just wish these guys had put a few extra hours in on this one, and I suppose in retrospect so do they.
-
I rather think you're right, there was.
-
Well no, it was South Park's network that lacked the balls there
This comes mostly down to the issue of how much it costs to make 22mins of very well animated show in a three week window (they have to make it topical) versus a cartoon magazine.
Satire *needs* to be funny, and therefore good, to really work. Which is why it's harder than most other comedy, it's the duality, the danger.
It really matters, precisely for these reasons, whether it's funny or not. It's crucial that it is.