[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Again, it's all about your framing.

My post was about the free speech beliefs, and had nothing to do with the motivations of the separate authors/illustrators.

I'm still completely against blasphemy laws, but I was pointing out the unsurprising difference of folks cheering when it's an attempt to piss off a community that is viewed as less than, when both situations produced cartoons offensive to minorities.

It's still entirely consistent to think that these cartoons are both anti-Semitic, and perfectly fine to print in newspapers if our motivations are purely free speech based. My point, is that they're not.

How do you reconcile being against blasphemy laws, while also thinking that cartoons of Mo shouldn't be printed? Depicting him only goes against a religion, which is different to offensively portraying a living person.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

How do you reconcile being against blasphemy laws, while also thinking that cartoons of Mo shouldn't be printed? Depicting him only goes against a religion, which is different to offensively portraying a living person.

Because there isn't anything to reconcile. Either we're all free speech absolutists, or we're not. I've learned over the years that I am not, and I don't think that many people are either, it's just that they all pretend they are.

Depicting Mohammed pissed off 1.5-2billion people, whereas the guardian cartoon only pissed off 2-300k Jews that live in the UK, so surely guardian cartons are better (turning your framing around)?

A religion is made up of people too, however hard you try to make it about a faceless religion versus one living man.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Depicting Mohammed pissed off 1.5-2billion people, whereas the guardian cartoon only pissed off 2-300k Jews that live in the UK, so surely guardian cartons are better (turning your framing around)?

It doesn't matter who gets pissed off, being pissed off is a choice. The kind of person who gets pissed off by a depiction of a dead paedo deserves to be pissed off, tbh.

I'm not even arguing that the Guardian should have removed their cartoon. But it's still different to invoke antiSemetic tropes to insult a specific person, that it is to simply depict another person.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It doesn't matter who gets pissed off, being pissed off is a choice. The kind of person who gets pissed off by a depiction of a dead paedo deserves to be pissed off, tbh.

I'm not even arguing that the Guardian should have removed their cartoon. But it's still different to invoke antiSemetic tropes to insult a specific person, that it is to simply depict another person.

You're making it about the motivations of the cartoons again, and I've repeatedly pointed out my posts are about our reactions to them.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

You're making it about the motivations of the cartoons again, and I've repeatedly pointed out my posts are about our reactions to them.

Like I said, my reaction was never that either should be deleted.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Like I said, my reaction was never that either should be deleted.

Then I appreciate that as a consistent position.

Do you at least see the point I was trying to make?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Then I appreciate that as a consistent position.

Do you at least see the point I was trying to make?

Sort of.

I don't see it as a valid comparison though - when whatabouting why not invoke another racial caricature, rather than one that mocks a religion?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Because there isn't anything to reconcile. Either we're all free speech absolutists, or we're not. I've learned over the years that I am not, and I don't think that many people are either, it's just that they all pretend they are.

Depicting Mohammed pissed off 1.5-2billion people, whereas the guardian cartoon only pissed off 2-300k Jews that live in the UK, so surely guardian cartons are better (turning your framing around)?

A religion is made up of people too, however hard you try to make it about a faceless religion versus one living man.

The Gary Lineker and Mae Muller scenarios make me believe you on some people all of a sudden being anti-free speech when they're normally pro.

I'm not just talking about on TIBB, I saw some people on other sites wanting those two silenced just for having an opinion that didn't align with their own viewpoint.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

The Gary Lineker and Mae Muller scenarios make me believe you on some people all of a sudden being anti-free speech when they're normally pro.

I'm not just talking about on TIBB, I saw some people on other sites wanting those two silenced just for having an opinion that didn't align with their own viewpoint.

I'm definitely pro free speech. I'm just not a free speech absolutist anymore (which I think I used to be - although I'm not 100% sure that was ever the case if that would have been really tested). I don't want speech silenced or restricted, but I also recognise that some speech is purposefully hateful and used only to inspire the worst in us.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I'm definitely pro free speech. I'm just not a free speech absolutist anymore (which I think I used to be - although I'm not 100% sure that was ever the case if that would have been really tested). I don't want speech silenced or restricted, but I also recognise that some speech is purposefully hateful and used only to inspire the worst in us.

Tbf I get what you mean.

Because for example if we took freedom of speech to it's truest form I don't think that I could support people freely inciting hatred and violence either, amongst other things that would probably be said if it were legal to say them.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Tbf I get what you mean.

Because for example if we took freedom of speech to it's truest form I don't think that I could support people freely inciting hatred and violence either, amongst other things that would probably be said if it were legal to say them.

like say the trans mob against JK or Posie Parker?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

like say the trans mob against JK or Posie Parker?

So were JK and Posie just living their lives and minding their own business, or did they use their platforms (which was massive in JK's case) to pile on to a marginalised community?

Hmmm....

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

like say the trans mob against JK or Posie Parker?

Well I don't support Posie Parker having to flee her country at one point, or that one weirdo that threatened to rape JK Rowling.

Controversially I think that the Trans community have got bigger enemies to deal with than JK Rowling.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Tbf I get what you mean.

Because for example if we took freedom of speech to it's truest form I don't think that I could support people freely inciting hatred and violence either, amongst other things that would probably be said if it were legal to say them.

Exactly my point.