Nobody is asking you to accept anyone's definition of what "taunting" is, but to accept their own definition of what offends them. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
It's the EXACT same debate.
They are using their unlimited capacity to take offense as a political weapon. This has to stop at some point, and we are way beyond that point today. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Private citizens are free to scream "treason" all they want. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I am saying that some Muslims are using their "ofenseability" (and the fact that it is something they have the sole right to define) to extract from us behavior which deviates significantly from what our values would suggest.
Bush is stifling free speech in the name of patriotism by branding people that criticise him as traitors and objective allies to enemies. These Muslims are doing the same - stifling free speech in the name of their religious practise by branding people that criticise them as intolerant and insulting.
Maybe you think that the criticism is unwarranted, in poor taste, or maybe you even disagree with it, but do you deny the right for it to be made? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Defining what is patriotic... well, that's probably up to the fatherland or the nation, and then we get into the discussion of who, if anyone, speaks for the fatherland or the nation.
Once I say something has offended me, it's up to other people to decide if they want to accomodate me or not. Maybe we don't want to accommodate muslims. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/archiv/03.02.2006/2328985.asp (in German I´m afraid)
While we Muslims are constantly demanding equality of rights and accusing the West of applying double standards, we ourselves are turning into fascists who want special rights here, there and everywhere. If caricatures of the Christian prophet Jesus are possible in Europe, then they should also be allowed for the prophet Mohammed. Why should we we granted special treatment: is our blood redder than the others'?
The author (a 29 year old German citizen of Iranian origin) asked his full name not to be published in the internet. I wonder why?
Meanwhile, the Islamists not only "label" these cartoonists as blasphemers, but follow it up with rifle attacks and physical injury.
Nobody is asking you to accept anyone's definition of what "taunting" is, but to accept their own definition of what offends them.
In that case we have to offer the same to everyone who might feel offended by something. Leaving us, as the lef-leaning "TAZ" in Germany wrote in an opinion piece with:
It is a demand that cannot be fulfilled, unless we all agree that priests, rabbis or imams should decide what we are allowed to read, hear or see. In the end, these religious authorities have for a long time proven to be formidable repressors when it comes to freedom of expression.
