You know, with so many people angered over the perceived corporate cowardice of Comedy Central, and the assertion that being worried over violent response is having a chilling effect on free expression, and how terrible it all is, and how someone should do something…
Here’s a thought. If you want to make a point about rights of free expression and standing firm in the face of potential negative reaction, here’s what you can do:
Go to Harlem, or to Watts, or any area with a heavily black population. Go at night. Go to a busy bar, or where you see a large group of residents congregating, and at the top of your lungs, start doing some of the Samuel L. Jackson speeches from “Pulp Fiction” where every other word is “ņìggër.” Say it loud. Say it proud. This was an Oscar-nominated winner of the Cannes Film Festival. Hit the word “ņìggër” particularly hard. Be firece. Be convincing.
See how that works out for you.
If you’re black, then you be the organizer. Find a white guy to be the guinea pig (how difficult could that be), and then try to convince bystanders that he’s just exercising free speech in the interest of political commentary.
What’s that, you say? You’re afraid you’ll get the crap kicked out of you? Your face bloodied? Your car destroyed? Well…yes. That’s a valid concern. And as the doctor is putting you back together or the mechanic is surveying the damage, they’ll ask you what happened, and you tell them, and if they say anything other than “Were you OUT of your MIND?” then what’s left of you can call the experiment a success. Or at least that’s what you can tell your lawyer after you’ve been arrested for inciting a riot and engaging in hate crimes.
While everyone’s busy sneering at newspapers or TV stations for being gutless, let’s remember that it is considered completely standard, acceptable and even–dare I say it–racially sensitive in every positive sense for people to say “the n-word” rather than “ņìggër.” Be honest: I’m saying it here, and your reaction, whoever you are, is to flinch or get angry. I’m using it to make a point, but it won’t surprise me if it gets angry letters to my publishers declaring, “Peter David wrote something that upset me! I’m never going to buy any of his books again, and you shouldn’t publish him!”
Because reprisals comes in all shapes and all sizes.
PAD
• 
And since we’re on the issue of terrorism as a tool, this article just popped up on Yahoo!:
Potential for domestic-based terrorist attack rising
I really think they should be keeping an eye out on ol’ Pat. 😉
Oh, crap… I typoed the html. 😛
Potential for domestic-based terrorist attack rising
Right… and it’s horseshit on your part merely because you agree with their decision and think you have the moral high horse to tell the rest of us that we’re wrong for thinking the way we do.
*BUZZ* Wrong answer! At no point have I EVER said that I either agree or disagree with CC’s decision in regards to the Mohammed image. I don’t give a crap one way of the other. I just grow weary of people self-righteously complaining that they could do the job better than the people that actually HAVE the training and expreience.
Guess that blows a hole in your theory about how much of a coward you think I am, doesn’t it?
You’re really having a problem with reading comprehension, aren’t you? Especially considering my statement not two posts before that declaring that caring more about the safety of one’s loved one’s than one’s own ego and making a point does NOT, indeed, make one a coward.
Hëll, why are people even talking about Comedy Central as if they were the New York Times of the Washington fûçkìņg Post anyway? It’s not as if CC has some obligation to show everything Parker and Stone animate. They have one obligation, and one obligation only, to make people laugh.
Oh, and just as a side note, making comments about the terrorists winning is like whipping out the nazi comparisons. It just makes the speaker look like an idiot.
PAD… What are the names of your publishers? I would like to write to them and say that I’ll be pre-buying any of your works sight un-seen. From my little corner of the world you are absolutely right and your comments demonstrate how hyprocritical (broad sense) we can be at times.
One more observation before I most likely bow out before I REALLY rile somebody up. It occurred to me that this is hardly the first time something like this has happened. It’s the most recent most publicized, but a few years ago, when the VHS version of Disney’s Aladdin was released, they changed a line of the opening song when some Arab American group raised a stink.
Admittedly, I was upset at the time, feeling a lot of the indignation I see here. But, then I realized that it didn’t upset me enough to keep me from buying the tape anyway and enjoying the movie despite the very obvious edit. (I still wonder if Disney did that on purpose as a sort of protest) So I shut up about it, realizing that if I was going to watch it anyway, my initial moral indignation didn’t amount to a hill of beans.
So, one final (non-confrontational hopefully, actually curious) question: Are the people here who are upset by the edit actually upset enough to stop watching either South Park or Comedy Central in general?
-Rex Hondo-
I just grow weary of people self-righteously complaining that they could do the job better than the people that actually HAVE the training and expreience.
I’m sorry, then why does PAD even post to this blog then?
Because, when one gets right down to it, some of his posts are often self-righteous complaints in the same vein as the very thing you’re complaining about.
President Bush would be a prime example.
Granted, some would say that Bush has neither the experience or the training, but he has now been president far longer than any of the rest of us, and was also a state governor, another position I’m sure none of us have held.
Try holding us all up to the same standard, will you?
Oh, and just as a side note, making comments about the terrorists winning is like whipping out the nazi comparisons.
*roflmao*
I guess it’s my turn for a “*BUZZ* Wrong answer!”.
To even THINK that this compares to the ol’ Godwin’s Law just makes me think that, well, Godwin’s Law probably actually applies and YOU have just lost the argument, Rex.
Well, for starters, raising a stink over a perceived derogatory lyric isn’t quite on the same level as threatening to kill people.
If I had been Disney I might have changed the lyric from “they cut off your hand” to “they line up homosexuals against a wall and pull the wall down on them” but that’s me and that’s why nobody puts me in charge of stuff.
Hey, it occurs to me that the makers of Family Guy can have the last laugh; all they have to do is have the doorbell ring and have a guy in a tubin deliver a pizza or fish helmet or whatever it was. No big deal, no announcement ahead of time.
It also occurs to me that South Park can keep this going in a few waysthey can go out of their way to have scenes in front of the Supreme Court and either show the fresco with Mohammed or, alternately, have his section of the wall blatently covered in a black box. They can have Mohammed Ali on and pixilate his face. They can introduce a new character, Chef Mohammed and continuosly bleep out his name, Beatrix Kiddo like. Lots of possibilities.
Hey, it occurs to me that the makers of Family Guy can have the last laugh
Actually, I’m surprised nobody has brought up the fact that, if showing Mohammed is going to get CC attacked by extremists, what is FOX supposed to think about this?
I don’t think there’s anything that FOX can do about parodies of both Family Guy and The Simpsons, but the whole use of Mohammed was in direct relation to Family Guy, and any pìššëd øff extremists who sees this are just as likely to focus on the use of Family Guy, not caring that it wasn’t from Family Guy itself.
Lots of possibilities.
Nothing that Parker & Stone would do as a result of this would surprise me.
But then, they’ve certainly succeeded at getting people to talk about these two episodes and the issues surrounding them.
Caldfyr wrote, “What if CC had aired an uncensored show. What if an insurgent group devastated a city block and claimed it was out of retaliation for the SP episode? Whether or not the possible media backlash cost CC anything, imagine the burden on the conscience of the person that made the decision.”
Comedy Central DID air an uncensored show with an appearance by Mohammed, as part of a SUPER FRIENDS parody (along with Jesus and Buddha). How much backlash was there? None whatsoever. Anyway, are we supposed to spend every waking moment worrying about everything we say and write within our own “free and open society”? Who the hëll wants to live that way?!
>>Well, now you know exactly how I feel every time American political pressure groups or religious pressure groups drive a TV series off the air with relentless complaints, boycotts and threats.
Like, say, The Book of Daniel? Here’s the difference: that show, offending aspects intact, still aired. A number of affiliates declined to run the show, but it aired in much of the country, and with a little bit of initiative, people who were unable to see the show could obtain copies of the program and view it for themselves.
On the other hand, the Muhammed episode of South Park in its intended form could not be seen by anyone in any part of the country. You could not exercise an option to do so, since no such option existed.
Also, I’m not so sure this general equivocation of rioting Muslims and protesting Christians works to your argumentative advantage. Or to put it another way: which group would you rather be caught in the middle of? There are apples and there are oranges, and then there are bloodthirsty oranges with a rather expansive view of the word ‘infidel’ and no shortage of violent rage to spend on what surrounds it.
-Dave O’Connell
>>Well, now you know exactly how I feel every time American political pressure groups or religious pressure groups drive a TV series off the air with relentless complaints, boycotts and threats.
Like, say, The Book of Daniel? Here’s the difference: that show, offending aspects intact, still aired. A number of affiliates declined to run the show, but it aired in much of the country, and with a little bit of initiative, people who were unable to see the show could obtain copies of the program and view it for themselves.
On the other hand, the Muhammed episode of South Park in its intended form could not be seen by anyone in any part of the country. You could not exercise an option to do so, since no such option existed.
Also, I’m not so sure this general equivocation of rioting Muslims and protesting Christians works to your argumentative advantage. Or to put it another way: which group would you rather be caught in the middle of? There are apples and there are oranges, and then there are bloodthirsty oranges with a rather expansive view of the word ‘infidel’ and no shortage of violent rage to spend on what surrounds it.
-Dave O’Connell
>>Well, now you know exactly how I feel every time American political pressure groups or religious pressure groups drive a TV series off the air with relentless complaints, boycotts and threats.
Like, say, The Book of Daniel? Here’s the difference: that show, offending aspects intact, still aired. A number of affiliates declined to run the show, but it aired in much of the country, and with a little bit of initiative, people who were unable to see the show could obtain copies of the program and view it for themselves.
On the other hand, the Muhammed episode of South Park in its intended form could not be seen by anyone in any part of the country. You could not exercise an option to do so, since no such option existed.
Also, I’m not so sure this general equivocation of rioting Muslims and protesting Christians works to your argumentative advantage. Or to put it another way: which group would you rather be caught in the middle of? There are apples and there are oranges, and then there are bloodthirsty oranges with a rather expansive view of the word ‘infidel’ and no shortage of violent rage to spend on what surrounds it.
-Dave O’Connell
TWL Said: “If the above all makes me an unprincipled weasel in anyone’s eyes, I suppose I’ll have to live with that. “
It doesn’t Tim, because in that scenario, it’s no longer you decision to make technically. It’s switched from YOU truly making the choice, to your boss. At that point, your responisibilty is technically out of your hands. You are supposed to obey your “superiors” at work, and if they say you aren’t allowed to run it, then you aren’t a weasel for not doing so. and that’s is when you leak the uneditted version to the internet 🙂
Posted by: Bladestar at April 17, 2006 02:00 PM
You are supposed to obey your “superiors” at work, and if they say you aren’t allowed to run it, then you aren’t a weasel for not doing so. and that’s is when you leak the uneditted version to the internet 🙂
Facetiousness aside, leaking the unedited version would make one an unprincipled weasel. Facilitating the theft of your company’s intellectual property is unethical and illegal.
Civil disobedience has its place. The civil rights movement of the 1960s was a textbook example of how to use civil disobedience to combat injustice. Their acts of lawbreaking were meaningful because the laws they were violating were inherently unjust.
But, I don’t think there’s anything unjust about Comedy Central censoring an image of Muhammed. In fact, I’d guess it’s well within the parameters of their contract with Trey Parker and Matt Stone. There is an argument to be made that Comedy Central’s decision was unwise, because it may embolden the terrorist fruit loops. But “unwise” is not tantamount to “unjust.”
So anyone who would agree to censor the episode and then leak the unedited version would be abandoning the moral high ground. In the scenario we’re discussing now, the only principled actions one could take would be to agree to censor the episode, or refuse to do so and then clean out your desk.
“Also, I’m not so sure this general equivocation of rioting Muslims and protesting Christians works to your argumentative advantage. Or to put it another way: which group would you rather be caught in the middle of?”
Depends. If they’re both wearing hoods and waving torches, and the only distinguishing between the two is that one of them is shouting “Kill the bášŧárdš!” and I understand them whereas the other is shouting and I don’t understand them, then I’m not seeing a lot of difference.
PAD
PAD
But really, how many shows get canceled due merely to protests from religious conservatives? I can think of more shows that survived assaults from religious/family groups than were successfully taken down by the them (the fact is Book of Daniel would have been canceled even if the right wing religious community had been silent).
Only saw this today, but might as well comment.
So if you see the scenario you so lavishly describe in your original posting as the one-to-one equivalent of showing the prophet Mohammed on the South Park episode, does that mean you believe the makers of SP and the heads of Comedy Central would have been arrested for hate crimes had they allowed to air it? No, of course you don’t. BTW, I found the use of the word “ņìggër” was probably less offensive than your playing towards white fears of big brawny blacks. And isn’t it telling that even in that hypothetical example you had to add further variables that have no equivalent in airing the SP episode as originally planned? It has to be done at night, in the big brawny blacks’ hang-out, the “agent provocateur” has to be white and a stranger to the neighborhood and he has to act in a most provoactive way.
Posted by: Menshevik at April 17, 2006 04:19 PM
BTW, I found the use of the word “ņìggër” was probably less offensive than your playing towards white fears of big brawny blacks.
Menshevik, you accuse Peter of “playing towards white fears,” but in the scenario at issue he never once described any of the physical characterstics of these hypothetical black people. I don’t know your ethnicity, but I think the fact that you associate “big and brawny” with “a group of black people” says more about you than it does about Peter.
I won’t presume to speak for Peter, but I think it was logical to use Harlem or Watts as examples because of the large numbers of black people living there. If you walked into a bar in Harlem or Watts you’d have a good chance of running into a large group of black people. Shouting “ņìggër” in a bar where almost everyone is white might not have the same effect.
Oh, and I have black friends, all of whom would tell me that if I walked into a bar with mostly black patrons and began shouting “ņìggër,” I’d get my ášš kicked. I mean, it’s a word that’s been used to dehumanize black people to make it easier to deny them basic human rights. And you don’t think it’s logical to assume shouting it in the middle of bar with mostly black patrons would be incendiary????
You know, it’s funny. I’ve disagreed with Peter in the past and not been shy about saying so. You can see the evidence in other threads in his blog.
Nevertheless, I’m just waiting for someone to start accusing me of kissing Peter’s ášš now because I am in almost complete agreement with him on this issue. You know, regardless of the fact that I have had differences of opinion with him before.
I mean, c’mon, it’s the Internet. You know it just has to happen.
Nevertheless, I’m just waiting for someone to start accusing me of kissing Peter’s ášš
You dámņ…
No, wait, I can’t do it. 🙂
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 17, 2006 05:59 PM
“Nevertheless, I’m just waiting for someone to start accusing me of kissing Peter’s ášš”
You dámņ…
No, wait, I can’t do it. 🙂
🙂
Bill Myers –
I would think it is not implausible that if we are talking about the white fears of black people, it is not implausible to assume that whites would be more afraid of big brawny ones than small scrawny ones (especially if the white guy was big and brawny enough himself to think he could hold his own against a fair-sized group of people provided they were small enough). But actually the reason why I chose that particular wording was the alliteration of the three b’s.
In any case, Peter David clearly described a situation where the guinea pig would clearly be outmatched physically and where the net result would be his being beaten to a pulp. I think that can be seen as playing towards white fears irrespective of the size and strength of the individuals in the busy bar(after all, he specified that notional black “organizer” should find a *white* guinea pig).
Don’t know where you got the idea that I thought it illogical that a white person going into a crowded bar in Harlem and shouting “ņìggër!” (oh dear, now I have to think of that sketch in The Kentucky Fried Movie) could end up with his teeth kicked in. What I questioned was whether this scenario really is as comparable to the situation with the caricatures of Mohammed. (Not unimportant differences: There had already been a South Park episode featuring Mohammed before, as far as I know with no problems, the riots about the Danish cartoons had to be orchestrated over a matter of weeks and months, not least by disseminating disinformation (including offensive cartoons which had never appeared in the Jyllandse Posten). So maybe a better equivalent would be a scenario where the black “organizer” went to the crowded bar and then tell the patrons that this white guy just passing outside the front window had just called them all ņìggërš?
PAD: Once upon a time, I was head of direct sales. If I hadn’t become a full time writer, that could well have been me being given that order. I would have refused to do it and tendered my resignation. I know this beyond question.
I’m curious. It is sometimes difficult to say, truly, what we would do in a particular situation if it ever came up. If someone pointed a gun at me and demanded my wallet would I really be as calm as I always picture myself being when I’m in the comfort of my home imagining it?
Is it possible that, being as you were no longer head of direct sales but had moved on to other things, that the backward view is slightly rose-tinted? It’s the certainty of the “I know this beyond question.” that caught my eye.
If you were the head of direct sales, had three (3?) children to support and did not have a developing career as a writer to turn to, would your stand on principal be as beyond question?
– Sean
Posted by: Menshevik at April 17, 2006 07:16 PM
Bill Myers –
I would think it is not implausible that if we are talking about the white fears of black people, it is not implausible to assume that whites would be more afraid of big brawny ones than small scrawny ones (especially if the white guy was big and brawny enough himself to think he could hold his own against a fair-sized group of people provided they were small enough). But actually the reason why I chose that particular wording was the alliteration of the three b’s.
It is equally plausible to believe that people of unremarkable physical strength could present a very real threat, if they outnumber you ten-to-one. The fact remains that you chose to focus on only one of many plausible permutations, and then tried to project that onto Peter. It still says more about you than it says about him.
If it makes you feel any better, I can be bigoted. I think it’s part of the human condition. The key is to acknowledge one’s own instinctive bigotries and counteract them with rational thought. And I think, unless you’re black and just haven’t mentioned it, that you may have unwittingly exposed a bigotry of your own.
What I questioned was whether this scenario really is as comparable to the situation with the caricatures of Mohammed. (Not unimportant differences: There had already been a South Park episode featuring Mohammed before, as far as I know with no problems, the riots about the Danish cartoons had to be orchestrated over a matter of weeks and months, not least by disseminating disinformation (including offensive cartoons which had never appeared in the Jyllandse Posten). So maybe a better equivalent would be a scenario where the black “organizer” went to the crowded bar and then tell the patrons that this white guy just passing outside the front window had just called them all ņìggërš?
The fact that Muhammed had been portrayed in South Park without incident in the past is in fact an unimportant difference when comparing “Cartoon Wars” to Peter’s Harlem/Watts scenario. Regardless of the fact that the rioters, thugs and terrorists didn’t jump on the bandwagon until awhile after the Danish cartoons first ran doesn’t matter, because they’re whipped up now. The danger inherent in portraying Muhammed NOW is somewhat analogous to going into a bar full of black patrons and hurling the grandaddy of all racial epithets at them.
Your attempts to label me as a bigot are beginning to sound desperate. Like you said, it is one of several possible permutations, but unlike you seem to think, it does not exclude other ones. Whether Peter David intended to or not, his original piece played on existing fears (let’s face it, many white Americans are afraid to go into a Harlem bar, period), and that is what I found more offensive than the use of the word “ņìggër” in a context that made it clear that he was not condoning its use.
The analogy between the “cartoon wars” and PAD’s Harlem/Watts scenario is wrong and inappropriate in many ways. The SP thing is not like walking into a bar in Harlem and recklessly provoking a riot, it is more akin to giving a show in a public place and before a mixed audience but scratching that routine satirizing homophobia for fear of reprisals from a violent and homicidal gay-bashers who could be in the audience or who might hear about the joke from a friend later on. Such behaviour might be understandable, but would it be commendable? While I guess you could debate if Comedy Central were cowardly or just doing what was good for business, not showing that episode in its original form certainly was not an act of bravery or a blow for free speech. To use an analogy that is every bit as appropriate to the situation as Peter David’s Harlem/Watts scenario, it is like refusing to testify against a mobster about a crime you witnessed and then someone congratulates you for doing this and says that the witness who did come forward but was later beaten up or killed had only brought it on himself.
What really annoys me about PAD’s analogy is that he portrays those who did have the courage to either reprint the cartoons from the Jyllandse Posten or to commission new caricatures squarely into the role of villains and fools. Shouting out the word “ņìggër” in a bar in Harlem is seen as unacceptable behaviour irrespective of whether or not you are in danger of being beaten up. The details of the scenario – included to make it certain that the provocateur ends up beaten up – make as much sense as saying “you can’t call someone a coward unless you are prepared to jump from a 4th-floor window into a crowded street” (which would also make it almost certain that you are killed or at least heavily injured and would also make you liable for criminal prosecution for the reckless endangerment of other people’s lives).
The “cartoon war” at South Park does not exist in isolation. Those criticizing this act of (self-)censorship will have measured South Park and Comedy Central both against their own self-image (irreverent! daring! pushing the envelope!) and against others who did defy the rioters e.g. by printing certain cartoons. So why get so worked up about criticizing Comedy Central for being less brave than Charlie Hebdo? They made a decision motivated by a sense of self-preservation and financial self-interest. It is sad that we live in a world where they apparently feel it is unsafe for them to let the makers of South Park express themselves on this one particular subject, and I can understand why they felt that way, but I do not feel the need to congratulate them on this choice or, in mounting a soapbox to speechify in its defense, to malign those who chose differently.
Posted by: Menshevik at April 18, 2006 04:26 AM
Your attempts to label me as a bigot are beginning to sound desperate.
Actually, I said you may have unwittingly exposed a bigotry within yourself. The word may is critical to understanding that sentence. I acknowledge that I cannot read minds.
Nevertheless, the fact that a scenario involving a bar full of black patrons led you to assume that they would be “big brawny black men,” and then led you to project that onto Peter and accuse him of “playing on white fears” is in my view noteworthy. And thus I stand by my assertion that your attempt to project your stereotypical thinking onto Peter is a sign of possible bigotry on your part.
Like you said, it is one of several possible permutations, but unlike you seem to think, it does not exclude other ones.
Huh? I never excluded anything. You’re the one who who assumed a bar full of black patrons meant a bar full of “big brawny” black guys. I’m the one who pointed out that there were other permutations.
Whether Peter David intended to or not, his original piece played on existing fears (let’s face it, many white Americans are afraid to go into a Harlem bar, period), and that is what I found more offensive than the use of the word “ņìggër” in a context that made it clear that he was not condoning its use.
No, his scenario was very reasonable. As I’ve said, I’ve got black friends who would discourage me from enacting Peter’s scenario in real life. Does that make them racist?
You’re the one who stereotyped blacks with the “big brawny” reference, not Peter. The idea that black patrons of a bar would not take kindly to a white person shouting the word “ņìggër” at them isn’t racist.
I’m not going to keep arguing with you in circles, and this will be my last response to you. I’m comfortable that what I’ve written to you is logical and reasonable, and I don’t believe your responses have been equally logical and reasonable. I can agree to disagree when someone uses logic to arrive at a different conclusion than I. But I can’t “agree to disagree” when someone’s argument amounts to nothing but paralogisms, as yours have.
Other posters here can attest to the fact that I can be, and have been, persuaded by others’ arguments. And when I really put my foot in it and say something stupid, I admit it flat-out. But I’m afraid your arguments to this point have been far too faulty to be persuasive. Sorry.
Menshevik, your understanding of PAD’s argument is flawed.
This is not a matter of going into Harlem/Watts/South Central and shouting “NÍGGÊR!” at the top of your lungs. This is a matter of performing a dramatic reading of a piece of art, written by someone else, made famous by a black actor for crying out loud. The only factor that makes it incendiary is the content of the speech – content loudly and proudly declaimed by Sam Jackson’s undeniably black character.
The point being, by deciding not to do this (assuming you would decide not to do this), you’re censoring your own artistic expression in the service of continuing to do business as you always have – in this case, with all limbs and internal organs intact. Wouldn’t this make you (generic you, here) as hypocritical as Comedy Central, which censored the Mohammed images from South Park in the interest of continued safety of business.
Now, mind you, I wouldn’t do it – but then, I never called CC hypocrites, either. They didn’t air it for the same reason they won’t show Matt and Trey’s work on “Orgazmo”, or “Cannibal” – because they don’t want to risk affronting a large group for no reason, when that group can take all their purchasing power and go back the companies that advertise on some other channel at that hour…
Something that’s been itching the back of my head for a while now is this. Now, we all know that the cartoon of Mohammed had a bomb in his turban. Were I a Muslim, that would kinda get under my skin, too. You think there would be the same fervor from MOST of them if Mohammed were seen helping little old ladies across the street and rescuing kitties from trees and handing out ice cream? Sure, some of the more, how do I put it delicately, fanatical Muslims would still get annoyed, but hey, Christians have their own groups that get pissy whenever a picture of Christ is shown or it’s suggested that someone born in that area 2000 years ago wouldn’t have blond hair and blue eyes or look like a displaced stereotype of a cab driver.
Please stop comparing groups who are guilty of whining and pìššìņg on TV with groups that burn down buildings and assault people.
Yeah, I find it annoying when some of the religious conservatives who freak out about media (God knows I want to stick a fork in my ear every time I see that guy from the Catholic League on some talk show)…but they are in the same category as any of the minority groups who go on TV or write op eds decrying how “my group is portrayed in the movies/TV/papers”…they have far more in common with the talking heads from groups griping about how gays/African Americans/Italian Americans/overweight Americans/etc are portrayed than they do with the *extremists* in the Muslim community who are willing to stone people who offend them.
Bill Myers –
The word “may” as used by you was not critical to the understanding of that sentence, it frequently is used (and may have been used here) just to cover the speaker’s ášš. It clearly was an ad personam attack where you conveniently seized upon one phrase (which I had chosen to a large part because of the alliteration, just as I might have said “burly blond Bavarians” had Peter David’s scenario involved a German bar, even though I am fully aware that not all Bavarians are burly or blond) in order not to adress the rest of my argument, which would not have been significantly different had I omitted the words “big” and “brawny”.
And by the way, assuming you were correct and I was prejudiced in the way you say, how does it logically follow that my suspicion that he used this particular example for a certain reason was wrong?
Whether or not you consider it racist to state that blacks will always react in one way without, apparently being able to exert any measure of control on their impulses, I’ll leave up to you. I would imagine that in some cases the patrons might be hesitant, e.g. if they weren’t sure that the agent provocateur wasn’t packing an uzi or a pump-gun under his bulky raincoat (you’d have to be insane to enact Peter David’s scenario anyway, so why exclude the possibility of a deranged killer?). (Oh dear, now I’ve done it, now I’m engaging in anti-white bigotry).
But that was not my point. I never claimed that an (unarmed) white person going into a crowded Harlem bar would not in all likelihood be beaten up if he behaved in the way Peter stipulated. What you consistently failed to address was that for a whole slew of reasons the Harlem/Watts scenario is not an appropriate analogy to the situation with that South Park episode. “Somewhat analogous” just does not cut it. If anything the comparison is an insult to the patrons of that bar, because their human reaction to an act of verbal aggression forced upon them whether they want to or not is being equated with a systematic campaign of terror exerted by thugs looking all over for pretexts for violence and hijacking a religion in the process.
Jonathan –
Nope. The scenario really to a large extent depends on the facts that a) “ņìggër” spoken by a white person is (in most cases rightly) perceived as more offensive than “ņìggër” spoken by a black person (whereas in the case of the prophet Mohammed, an insult perpetrated by a Muslim would be considered a more serious matter than one perpetrated by an infidel) and b) that it is not immediately apparent to everyone that PAD’s agent provocateur is quoting from a work of art (I know I wouldn’t because, and this is probably my greatest fault, I’ve never seen “Pulp Fiction”), that at least some people will think that he is actually going off on an unscripted rant. The situation with that South Park episode is more akin to a white impressionist doing a parody of Samuel Jackson as part of his stage act.
Thom –
the question some people have asked is why Muslim moderates take offense at something like a caricature of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban but not at the extremists who proclaim that throwing bombs etc. is doing God’s and Mohammed’s work (and seen as a comment on that kind of attitude, the offending cartoon actually can be said to make a valid point, rather like the “Republican Jesus” cartoons you can see on the internet). But that is not just a problem with Islam, in other religions too the extremists who use their religion as a justification for their prejudices and for violence are generally accepted as sincere believers and few dare call them presumptuous.
Sorry, my comment addressed to Thom was actually intended for Rat.
Posted by Thom at April 18, 2006 08:39 AM
Sorry Thom, but Christianity has it’s share of radicals & extremists who kill & bomb those who disagree with them, and until it doesn’t it gets lumped together with the others.
Posted by: Menshevik at April 18, 2006 08:51 AM
Bill Myers –
The word “may” as used by you was not critical to the understanding of that sentence, it frequently is used (and may have been used here) just to cover the speaker’s ášš.
Menshevik, I know I said I wasn’t going to respond. And it would probably be wiser not to do so. But, you have twisted my words and I feel honor-bound to set you straight.
One definition of the word “may,” according to the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, is “indicates possibility.” So if you subract the word “may” from the sentence in question, you change its meaning completely. It goes from being an assertion that something is possibly true to an assertion that something is unquestionably true. Therefore, the word “may” is indeed critical to understanding the sentence. QED. Nothing you say will change this fact.
By the way, why do you feel the need to criticize me for acknowledging a degree of uncertainty? Admitting that I don’t know everything isn’t “covering my ášš,” it’s just an acknowledgement of reality: I am one imperfect being amongst billions. I’m not omniscient. I’m not special. I don’t know everything.
At the same time, I can’t discount the undeniable fact that you accused Peter of playing on “white people’s fears” of “big” and “brawny” black men, even though he never described the physical characteristics of the hypothetical black people in his scenario. Has it occurred to you that the honorable thing to do would be to simply cede the point, and say, “Yes, you’re right, I mischaracterized what Peter said. My bad.”
I mean, I stepped in it by challenging edhopper to put his money where his mouth is by circulating some cartoons that might anger radical Islamists only to find out that, y’know, that’s precisely what he had already done. So I publicly apologized for my shameful behavior. It doesn’t make one any less of a person to admit when one is wrong.
It clearly was an ad personam attack where you conveniently seized upon one phrase (which I had chosen to a large part because of the alliteration, just as I might have said “burly blond Bavarians” had Peter David’s scenario involved a German bar, even though I am fully aware that not all Bavarians are burly or blond) in order not to adress the rest of my argument, which would not have been significantly different had I omitted the words “big” and “brawny”.
No, I’m afraid you’re wrong. A significant part of your argument was that Peter was playing on white fears about “big” and “brawny” black men. It’s too late to back out of it now. You said it, and the evidence is right here in your first post on this board.
And by the way, assuming you were correct and I was prejudiced in the way you say, how does it logically follow that my suspicion that he used this particular example for a certain reason was wrong?
Because, as I’ve stated repeatedly, you accused Peter of playing on people’s fears of “big” and “brawny” black men even though he never described the physical characteristics of the hypothetical black people in his scenario. You’re the one whose mind conjured up a stereotype in response to a scenario about hypothetical black people. That’s not an “ad personam” attack, it’s a fact that is evident in this very thread.
May I suggest that it isn’t helping you to keep denying that you accused Peter of playing on “white fears” based on a stereotype conjured up by you and not him? It’s been my experience that if you just own up to something you’ve done and take your medicine, people respect that. And you can, y’know, move on.
Whether or not you consider it racist to state that blacks will always react in one way without, apparently being able to exert any measure of control on their impulses, I’ll leave up to you. I would imagine that in some cases the patrons might be hesitant, e.g. if they weren’t sure that the agent provocateur wasn’t packing an uzi or a pump-gun under his bulky raincoat (you’d have to be insane to enact Peter David’s scenario anyway, so why exclude the possibility of a deranged killer?). (Oh dear, now I’ve done it, now I’m engaging in anti-white bigotry).
And maybe if I did what Peter suggested and everyone in the bar did want to beat me up, cybernetic monkey space-aliens wearing jet-packs might swoop down and carry me off to safety. And then maybe offer me a banana, which I’d have to politely decline because I don’t like bananas.
Peter’s scenario dealt with the most likely outcome of hurling incendiary racial epithets at patrons of a bar, okay? You’re stomping on the minutae at the periphery because you’re losing the core argument.
But that was not my point. I never claimed that an (unarmed) white person going into a crowded Harlem bar would not in all likelihood be beaten up if he behaved in the way Peter stipulated.
Uhm, yes, you just did above. You can’t have it both ways.
What you consistently failed to address was that for a whole slew of reasons the Harlem/Watts scenario is not an appropriate analogy to the situation with that South Park episode.
No, I addressed it quite well. I said that the danger inherent in airing a depiction of Muhammed given today’s environment is somewhat analogous to the danger inherent in going to a bar in Harlem or Watts and delivering some of the Samuel L. Jackson speeches from “Pulp Fiction” where every other word is “ņìggër.”
“Somewhat analogous” just does not cut it.
Prove it.
If anything the comparison is an insult to the patrons of that bar, because their human reaction to an act of verbal aggression forced upon them whether they want to or not is being equated with a systematic campaign of terror exerted by thugs looking all over for pretexts for violence and hijacking a religion in the process.
No, I’m sorry, you’re wrong. Peter never conflated the hypothetical reactions of the hypothetical black people to the very real threat of terrorist actions from radical Islamic extremists looking for an excuse to be violent. You did that.
You’re deliberately ignoring the core of Peter’s analogy: in both the “Cartoon Wars” situation and Peter’s scenario, there is a danger that engaging in protected speech could result in physical harm to you and/or others. You haven’t done anything to address that.
Look, Menshevik, I’m sorry. It’s not my intent to belittle you, and I apologize for letting my irritation come through. But, y’know, you keep changing your argument to avoid the logical consequences of your own words, and that grates on people, y’know? The fact is, you did indeed accuse Peter of playing on white fears about “big” and “brawny” black men even though Peter never evoked such an image. And the fact is, I did address your argument about Peter’s analogy. Twice, now.
I don’t mind an argument, Menshevik. I find the process useful in helping me sharpen my own thinking, and I often learn things from engaging in civil debates. But, y’know, don’t twist my words or try to deny those things you actually said in order to “win,” okay? Maybe it’s a conceit on my part, but that stuff makes me a bit… cross.
“To use an analogy that is every bit as appropriate to the situation as Peter David’s Harlem/Watts scenario, it is like refusing to testify against a mobster about a crime you witnessed and then someone congratulates you for doing this and says that the witness who did come forward but was later beaten up or killed had only brought it on himself.”
I don’t know that it’s something one would congratulate you for. But certainly if you were asked to testify and you said, “No, because I’m afraid I’ll be beaten up and killed, and I’m afraid for my family’s life as well,” one would have to be pretty cold not to be able to at least *understand the reasons and not make judgments.* Which is exactly and precisely what I’ve been saying about Comedy Central. So, y’know, thanks for proving my point.
As for the rest of your complaint, you have completely and utterly missed the point. I was endeavoring to illustrate my example with something that would ignite the same quick-fire fury as images of Mohammed in a different group. And so I chose the word “ņìggër,” a word so deplored that even daily newspapers don’t run it for fear of reprisals. Now…are you going to try and tell me that blacks would NOT be the ones who would then react the most strongly? Because I’m thinking they are.
It has nothing to do with trying to paint blacks in a negative light and nothing to do with playing upon fears or preconceptions. If I could have thought of a different word that newspapers or the media conspicuously go out of their way not to utilize, and yet had been actively used in an acclaimed work of art, I would have done so. You find me a well-known movie with frequent use of the word “kike” and newspapers that say “the K-word” and I’ll transpose the example into a crowded Purim festival without batting an eye. But I don’t think you’re going to be able to do that.
PAD
“Please stop comparing groups who are guilty of whining and pìššìņg on TV with groups that burn down buildings and assault people.”
I don’t think I will, no. Pressure is pressure and fear is fear. Whether it’s fear of economic sanctions, huge picket groups, or being blown up, it’s still fear and pressure tactics being applied because of a single-minded determination to make everyone else abide by one’s own beliefs and not show or disseminate things that someone finds personally upsetting. It’s just a matter of degree.
PAD
So, if I am understanding you correctly, you feel this way about any group that does the same? he groups that tried to suppress the release of the Passion of the Christ (using the same tactics as those that tried to stop the release of the Last Temptation no less)? Gay activists have attempted to have shows they disagree with pulled, musicians performances cancelled…am I understanding correctly that you feel all these groups are in the wrong, so to speak, the minute they go from challenging to actually attempting to stop the release of a movie/show?
Michael…
“Sorry Michael, but Evironmentalists have their share of radicals & extremists who kill & bomb those who disagree with them, and until it doesn’t it gets lumped together with the others.”
BTW, Peter,
If the above comes off as some attempt at a trap (I started to think it looked like it could be me attempting to set you up) I did not intend it that fashion at all. Just trying to make sure I am understanding your approach to all of this.
Michael…
“Sorry Michael, but Evironmentalists have their share of radicals & extremists who kill & bomb those who disagree with them, and until it doesn’t it gets lumped together with the others.”
Exactly. Every large group has it’s fringe loonies who are willing to resort to violence to get their way. A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of what they call themselves, be it Islamic, Christian, or Environmentalist.
Mr. Ries: Are you saying that the only people who can legitimately criticize President Bush are former presidents. Hardly. One need not be a chickent to judge the quality of an egg!!
Peace out. The Rev
“So, if I am understanding you correctly, you feel this way about any group that does the same? he groups that tried to suppress the release of the Passion of the Christ (using the same tactics as those that tried to stop the release of the Last Temptation no less)? Gay activists have attempted to have shows they disagree with pulled, musicians performances cancelled…am I understanding correctly that you feel all these groups are in the wrong, so to speak, the minute they go from challenging to actually attempting to stop the release of a movie/show?”
Yup.
Jewish organizations (for instance) who tried to shut down “Passion of the Christ” were no more in the right than those who tried to shut down “Last Temptation.” (Although actually the latter’s actions were more egregious since, from my understanding, “Temptation” was actually a good film.)
I have said repeatedly on this blog that liberals and liberal organizations are some of the most aggressive censors of material there is. More often than not, though, they differ from conservatives in the following manner: Conservatives lobby for censorship because they say the material upsets them. Liberals lobby for censorship because they say the material is going to offend someone else.
PAD
Mr. Ries: Are you saying that the only people who can legitimately criticize President Bush are former presidents.
I think you need to read all the posts in this thread.
Conservatives lobby for censorship because they say the material upsets them. Liberals lobby for censorship because they say the material is going to offend someone else.
True enough, which makes them more dangerous. For what is there that does not offend SOME gøddámņëdbødÿ? Ultimately we would end up in some kind of artistic Nerfworld, like those stories Ray Bradbury used to write about (besides Farenheit 451; he had a number of short stories based in the premise that any story that could offend some segment of the population was banned).
the latter’s actions were more egregious since, from my understanding, “Temptation” was actually a good film.
Different strokes and all. Having seen both I’d rate PASSION as the superior of the two, though TEMPTATION is a very good movie. Perhaps the controversy raised expectations that the movie couldn’t deliver, which of course is not Scorsese’s fault. On the other hand, the dismissals of PASSION as just a gore pørņ film actually helped it when it turned out to be something considerably more. Also, there are a few performances in TEMPTATION that totally bring me out of the movie–Gibson’s decision to use Aramic was probably a good one for several reasons, not the least of which was to eliminate the campy elements that seem to show up in every other biblical picture.
But mileage varies.
Some thoughts…
**I’m starting to think CC didn’t decide to censor South Park. I’m thinking this was the big plan.
Trey & Matt say it takes 6 days to make a South Park episode. Even the Jesus/Bush/flag scene would take time…time they wouldn’t of really had to put it together if this was a last minute descision.
And really, how would the episode of ended anyway?
Why would they do this? Hello…this is South Park and Comedy Central. They’re getting lots of press because of all of this.
**The Edhopper/Bill Myers exchanges WAY up on the page are really facsinating.
**For you Christians getting your panties in a bunch over this…I imagine you’ll be right there to stop the Christian protests over the DaVinci Code movie? Opus Dei (“The work of G-d”) is right now planning who knows what because they don’t like that Dan Brown portrays them as psycholoons with a martyr complex. In Rome on Sunday, a Cardnial in his sermon before the Pope condemened the book and movie…it’s a lousy murder mystery people with a made up historical conspiracy that’s ripped off from another work….where was I….oh yeah.
**I’m thinking I may agree with PAD…I’m not sure I agree with CC (assuming it’s not a big plot, see above), but I kind of understand it….
“True enough, which makes them more dangerous. For what is there that does not offend SOME gøddámņëdbødÿ?”
Well, true, but liberals rarely jump to the defense of conservative concerns, so that eliminates a whole bunch of people right there.
I don’t know that I’d say “dangerous” so much as I would “annoying” or perhaps “self-righteous.” What really gets me is when liberal-types protest on behalf of groups that take no issue with the material in question. For instance, when I was writing “Supergirl,” I got tons of letters from outraged heterosexuals demanding that the “hackneyed, stereotyped” lesbian character of Andy be dropped from the book because she was an insult to lesbians everywhere. I didn’t get letters from gays, mind you; just straight people on behalf of gays who apparently couldn’t be trusted to drop me a line. This kept up right up until the following year when “Supergirl” received an award from GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), citing Andy as a “sensitive and uplifting portrayal of gays in comics.”
PAD
Peter, Bill, also worthy of notes is an unholy intersection between liberals and conservatives: the quest to ban pornography. Some liberals, particularly liberal feminists, object to pornography because they believe that exposure to images of objectified females leads men to be more likely to physically and sexually assault women. Many conservatives object to pornography because of a broader social agenda driven by religious beliefs.
The funny thing is that the liberal feminists are being hoodwinked. Because liberal feminists are generally interested in stopping pornography, whereas religious conservatives would use that as a stepping stone to further curtail freedoms — including some freedoms liberal feminists hold dear.
I really don’t know how you can label one group more dangerous than the other. Extremist liberals and extremist conservatives are very much alike in that both groups want to engage in social engineering (although the extreme conservatives often deny it, which may make the extreme liberals a bit more honest). Regardless of the underpinning philosophy, both extemes emphasize the collective over the individual. Whereas I see collectivism as a necessary evil (I mean, anarchy’s no good, unless you want people to be able to rape and pillage and pee all over your garage door with impunity); it has its place but must be properly controlled. It’s like fire: it’s useful but dangerous.
Oh yeah, there’s no doubt you’re correct, Bill. I’m not a huge pørņø fan–the movies are thinly plotted and often poorly lit and it amazes me that one can be so bad an actor as to make the line “Sexual favors in return for delivering a pizza? Oh boy!” sound unconvincing–but I hate the fact that these do-gooders are so determined to stop it. Or lie about it. Or think that Playboy causes sexual desire when it is clearly the other way around.
It may be that my being in education has slanted me toward thinking that the liberal cesors are the most dangerous and effective since they are the ones who hold so much power in academia. I don’t like it any better when it comes from the right.
PAD, what amazes me is that anyone could be so dense that they could possibly see any hint of anti-gay prejudice in your writing. I’m curious, does the fact that people can do this make you at all hesitant to include gay characters? I think I would think twice beofre creating a gay character of any importance to a series, both because of the idiots who would be looking for any perceived slight and the fact that I would feel hamstrung with what I could do with him or her. I would want to reserve the right to have any character I write be capable of behaving in a less than positive manner if it’s true to the story but the idea that I’ll be hit with hundreds of protesting letters might give me pause. It’s probably why so many gay characters in movies and TV are left to the boring “best friend” role.
Bill, I seem to remember something that bolsters your argument; feminists in Canada helped pass fairly harsh anti-pørņ laws and one of the first persecutions was of a radical lesbian magazine. D’oh!
As regards the hypothetical situation waaaaaay up at the top, I checked with my wife, who, being a) from Atlanta and b) black, is a little closer to the situation than my white butt, and she tells me that in such a neighborhood on the East Coast, they would not only recognize the speech, there’s about a 50% chance that one or more of the people you’re addressing would join in. Here on the left coast, of course, you wouldn’t even get started – in South Central, they’d kick your tail just for being a honky, before you could begin on the speech. Assuming you did manage to get started, of course, they’d still know what you were citing – it’s Samuel L. Jackson, for crying out loud – but you’d still get stomped for being white.
“Yup.”
Ahhh, thanks for the confirmation. I can get on board with that. 🙂
Your hypothetical really doesn’t work, as there’s no rhyme or reason to do what you’re suggesting. You’re just suggesting we provoke for the sake of being provocative.
However, if one were to suggest staging a play in an actual theatre of Pulp Fiction or another work that uses the N-word througout, then I would have no problem doing it, even it it was satire along the lines of South Park.