This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
asakawa
Fair enough but any capitulation would have been (or seen to have been which would be as bad) giving in to terrorism. If their message were to soften after being attacked then that's a win for the terrorists. Simply exercising freedoms that are restricted by the religions they criticise is making the point that they're trying to make. That message is even more important after the attacks. They are (rightly) incensed by what happened. Why would you expect that they would be in any mood to unify and make nice?
You should certainly do that if you think it's important. The publishers will, I'm sure, never see things that way and who could blame them.
Post by
oneforthemoney
True. An unfortunately blunt way to make a point but it was made. Hopefully the use of the image itself will be forgotten in a week and people will be able to look more directly at the tragedy itself; the fact that it happened rather than necessarily the reason it did being the primary point we should take away. And to be fair, it seems to have, if the recent raid in Belgium is any indication.
Post by
asakawa
But here's my point of contention. The reason it happened is
not
because a paper printed tactless or rude images. The reason is that Islamist terrorists want to curtail the freedoms of French people by using violence and intimidation. Any softening of that very clear point is blaming the victim and I can't let that happen without challenging it.
I hope that the use of the image will be well remembered as a sign that violence can not be used to terrorise and intimidate law-abiding citizens into changing their behaviour.
Post by
Monday
If religion could tolerate different opinions then we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
How do you know that it's religious and not cultural? There are plenty of religions that have adapted.
Post by
Monday
People try to shift the blame from religion to culture because it is easier than criticising religion itself.
Oh @#$% off with that. I'm open to criticizing any religion, but blaming religion solely for for "the mess we're in today" is intellectually lazy and extremely dishonest.
If somebody says that they are doing something because they follow a religion then it doesn't matter what their culture is, it is still to do with religion.
But is it not their culture to follow that religion? Are they not raised in a culture of religion? Both contribute, you can't pick one without the other.
Post by
Squishalot
asakawa, I've been having a bit of a think about your question about whether Life of Brian should have been banned. I had a squizz at Wikipedia, which notes:
The film contains themes of religious satire that were controversial at the time of its release, drawing accusations of blasphemy and protests from some religious groups. Thirty-nine local authorities in the UK either imposed an outright ban, or imposed an X (18 years) certificate, effectively preventing the film from being shown, as the distributors said it could not be shown unless it was unedited and carried the original AA (14) certificate. Some countries, including Ireland and Norway, banned its showing, with a few of these bans lasting decades. The filmmakers used such notoriety to benefit their marketing campaign, with posters in Sweden reading 'So funny, it was banned in Norway!'
So fair to say that it was banned at the time, in several jurisdictions.
I'd also note that we live in a somewhat different world from the one we did back then, where we enforce a more tolerant and peaceful message. We no longer whip children at school or condone hitting them at home. In the past, there have been forum discussions on the use of corporal punishment in the household - is it right that it is banned in most countries now? We're also much happier censuring and preventing bullying, both physical and non-physical, behaviour in schools. Whatever your view on that is, it's clear that as a society, we can't simply look backwards at what was right in the past and use that to justify what should be right today.
I would say that the cartoons and Life of Brian are what we might call 'unnecessarily provocative and inflammatory'. Are they so provocative and inflammatory as to warrant their prosecution under a hate crime or under some sort of offensive / vilifying act law? The former, probably not, the latter, maybe so. I would say that some of the cartoons, such as
this one
could quite well fall under inciting hatred against Muslims. However, I would be happy to say that their particular brand of intentionally inflammatory satire is one that I would not welcome in a peaceful society when there are so many other ways to get one's point across without being deliberately provocative.
Post by
asakawa
It was no accident that I chose the Life of Brian, I'm well aware of the controversy at the time of release and chose it because of similarities to what we're seeing now. I chose it because it was controversial at the time, banned by a few towns by their local councils, but is today recognised as a very strong comedy film that successfully satirises, not Christianity but dogmatic belief in general. I linked this earlier when I first mentioned the Life of Brian but if you didn't watch it then I strongly suggest you do -
Two Pythons debate the film with a Bishop and a zealot journalist
. Aside from being relevant, it's funny and insightful.
The fact that you would call the Life of Brian 'unnecessarily provocative and inflammatory' stuns me, honestly. You then say that the cartoons should not warrant prosecution but you think the film should?! (unless your "former" and "latter" got mixed up) I'm flabbergasted. My flabber is fully gasted right now!
The Monty Python film is legitimate art and satire of the highest quality but you would censure it to protect the kind of fools who can't even understand what it's satirising? This is the absolute point of the issue here. The Python film is criticising dogma, giving up critical thinking for faith, following charismatic people despite their crazy ideas. Its treatment of Jesus himself, who is barely seen, is very fair (sermon on the mount scene). If this is the kind of criticism that you would not allow then I think you're absolutely insane and would not want to live in a country where you made the decisions.
I actually wonder, have you seen the Life of Brian lately? Are you forming your opinion based on the controversy rather than the content?
Ah, all these people thought it was terrible so we must protect them!
If so then you're doing exactly what the town councils did at the time. There was a campaign to ban it led and carried out by people who hadn't seen it. As I said earlier in the thread, you can't decide what's okay and what's not by just banning anything vaguely controversial. A loud minority shouldn't dictate to a whole country what it can and can't see or do.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
I'm obviously no expert in the culture, the religion or psychology but my view is that, taking a wider view of this kind of unrest globally over recent years, it is the culture that makes people want to lash out, while it is the religion that gives those people the permission. By culture I mean things like Political situation, sovereignty, history, endured hardships, perceived hardships and nationalism. By permission I mean that if people in that state of mind are surrounded by a sect of a religion that not only preaches that violent action against infidels and apostates are morally permissible but teaches that it is a moral imperative that will be rewarded in heaven, then there's a pretty heady mix that's bound for disaster.
I think that what makes me inclined toward blaming religion is that the people who carry out attacks and even suicide bombings and so on, are not desperate people who have endured great hardship and feel cornered, like the only way they can protect their loved ones is to lash out. The people involved (in my limited understanding of things) are educated (often in the west), relatively privileged men. Idealistic men who are targeted and preyed upon by religious leaders wanting to push an Islamist agenda.
Stephen Weinberg is quoted as saying "'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." This is how I see this situation. It takes the fear of a god and the rewards of heaven to get people to do things they would have seen as unimaginable.
Post by
Monday
Stephen Weinberg is quoted as saying "'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." This is how I see this situation. It takes the fear of a god and the rewards of heaven to get people to do things they would have seen as unimaginable.
That quote is laughably shallow. There are hundreds of reasons to get good people to do things they would have seen as unimaginable. Threats against their family, political ideology, economic reasons, etc. Why is religion this special thing that gets singled out over all of those?
Last I looked it wasn't atheists who were killing people for publishing cartoons. "The mess we are in today" was meant in the context of the thread where people, because of their religion beliefs, have to kill people, because they they were mocking that religion. That people cannot, without risking their lives, publish satirical comments about religion is a terrible situation to be in.
My apologies, I partially misconstrued the original statement.
Religion here is the primary problem and culture is secondary.
If religion is primary, why aren't there hundreds of violent Muslims or Christians in the American continent (that are killing in the name of religion)?
Edit: Oh, and before someone tries to dismiss me by saying that I'm obviously worked up because I'm religious: I'm not, and haven't been for a couple years now. I just despise the "hur dur religions are teh evulz praise sagan DAE LE SCIENCE" that permeates the internet.
Post by
Squishalot
The fact that you would call the Life of Brian 'unnecessarily provocative and inflammatory' stuns me, honestly. You then say that the cartoons should not warrant prosecution but you think the film should?! (unless your "former" and "latter" got mixed up) I'm flabbergasted. My flabber is fully gasted right now!
Yes, I did get it mixed up, whoops! Will respond to the rest later, unless you have a shift in your view from my mistake.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
Stephen Weinberg is quoted as saying "'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." This is how I see this situation. It takes the fear of a god and the rewards of heaven to get people to do things they would have seen as unimaginable.
That quote is laughably shallow. There are hundreds of reasons to get good people to do things they would have seen as unimaginable. Threats against their family, political ideology, economic reasons, etc. Why is religion this special thing that gets singled out over all of those?
You're essentially talking about coercion and desperation. Desperation certainly makes people do things that they wouldn't ordinarily but I would suggest that the point that Weinberg was making is that Religion is a form of coercion, just one that has become embedded into society too deeply for people to see it. Since I used the quote to sum up the larger point I was making it is a little sad that you chose to deride the quote for not being universally cohesive rather than addressing my point.
Edit: Oh, and before someone tries to dismiss me by saying that I'm obviously worked up because I'm religious: I'm not, and haven't been for a couple years now. I just despise the "hur dur religions are teh evulz praise sagan DAE LE SCIENCE" that permeates the internet.
Tsk. Trying to head off someone labelling and mocking you by getting in there first. This is how interesting discussions become heated arguments and we may be on the internet but we can choose to be grown-ups and avoid that.
edit: that explains it Squish. Will reread with that in mind.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Monday
You're essentially talking about coercion and desperation. Desperation certainly makes people do things that they wouldn't ordinarily but I would suggest that the point that Weinberg was making is that Religion is a form of coercion, just one that has become embedded into society too deeply for people to see it.
And I agree with this notion, but it's worded as if religion is the only thing that would do something of that nature.
Since I used the quote to sum up the larger point I was making it is a little sad that you chose to deride the quote for not being universally cohesive rather than addressing my point.
It's because I mostly agree with the point. Religion intertwined with the hatred of the West which is currently ingrained in the Middle East is a powerful force to combat and can push people to do some heinous things. However, the quote you picked seemed to imply that the area would be just fine if religion didn't exist.
Tsk. Trying to head off someone labelling and mocking you by getting in there first. This is how interesting discussions become heated arguments and we may be on the internet but we can choose to be grown-ups and avoid that.
If they want to mock me, fine. If they want to label me, fine. The point was to avoid having someone attempt to dismiss my point with no actual discussion involved because some people remember me as religious (which has happened on this forum before). I was voicing my displeasure at this shameless debate tactic and don't regret a bit of it.
Post by
asakawa
@Monday, I want to avoid being derailed by this as it's so off topic but you shouldn't worry about someone avoiding your point by insulting you. Nobody that you care about will read it and see it as anything other than ad hominem nonsense. Doing it yourself beforehand just inclines people to write your own post off as that instead and you do yourself a disservice. Just a little advice.
@Squish in that context my level of shock would be lower but it still stands that I brought the Python film up as an example of the same sort of content but one that most people would be happy with or defend. The fact that you do see the film as less offensive and less problematic is less surprising but makes my initial point. Perhaps the people at the time who were deeply offended (stupidly in my opinion but you would expect to hear that from me) weren't threatening violence or terror but does that make their offence any less problematic to you? Does the level of comedy or art involved make it different? does the level of effort or budget make a difference? Does the credibility of the creators make a difference? To those whose religious convictions are offended none of that matters, so why don't you take it as seriously?
They are the same. Both legitimate. Both essentially criticising the same problem that plagues society. Just doing so by annoying different faiths.
Post by
Maurvyn
I would add that religion combined with a lack of education is truly more dangerous than simply religion.
As has been said there are millions of peaceful, tolerant religious people. It is in situations where a religious dogma can be inflamed in a population that is too ignorant to know any different, or has a desire to, or sees a benefit in, perpetuating this dogma.
It is pure fallacy that to think that religion is not a big factor here. The religious theocracy of Islam are the ones demanding and supporting these acts. Whether it is through Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or what have you; it is a single religion that is the common thread in all of them,
Does that mean all religion, or even all of Islam, is necessarily evil? Absolutely not.
But to say that religion is not a primary factor is just straight denial.
Post by
Rankkor
*sighs*
This is the type of media censorship that makes me agree with you Asakawa.
Context: There's this game in development by an indie company called "Hatred". The game itself isn't important, its not really
that
impressive, its the premise that has drawn a lot of controversy where none needs to be had.
The premise is that you play as a nameless insane mass murderer armed to the teeth, who for no reason whatsoever, wants to kill as many people as he can before he dies in a violent way. So he arms himself, locks&loads, exists his house, and begins killing anything and anyone in his way. That's it.
If it wasn't for this premise, the game would have no controversy at all. It lacks any form of plot, the gameplay is frankly nothing impressive, the graphics are nothing out of the ordinary either, and the violence? please, I've played way more violent games (one of the worse ones has to be Dead Space, and specially Dead Space 2). If what you were killing was zombies, or demons, this wouldn't be a bleep on anyone's radar. But since the targets are cops and civilians, all of the sudden people are making a proverbial poop-storm, trying to prevent the game from being released and/or published, to the extremes that the garbage excuse of journalists on the link above have gone: accusing the developers of being neo-nazis.
And of course, the likes of Anita Sarkeesan on her "Feminist Frequency" program accusing this game to be misogynistic, just because the protagonist is a white man that can kill women (news flash: He kills everyone, men, women, and anything in-between, equally).
I really hate it when people do that.
Ohhhh there's this guy who killed 100 people, I'm gonna accuse him of racist simply because there were several black people among the victims. Nevermind that there were lots of white people among them too. And this other person is gonna accuse him of being anti-semitic because there were a lot of jews among his victims, nevermind that there were also lots of non-jews too. And that other guy over there is gonna accuse him of being a woman-hater, just because a lot of his victims were women, nevermind that a lot of his victims were men too.
Thanks to this sensationalism, the game has been given an Adult Only rating. Seriously? Normally the AO rating is given when there is very explicit and graphic pornographic content in the game. Here it was given for no other reason than to placate people arming up a fuss.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this particular game in specific (objectively speaking, I see it as a fairly unimpressive game, there's no plot to it, gameplay looks generic, there's very little immersion and very little reason to care after you've played for more than a few minutes), I'm just upset at how people, who find this game offensive, would want to censorship and go to such extreme lengths. Its a tale as old as time, their fury and outrage is just fueling the fire, and giving the object of their rage free publicity.
When the game gets released, chances are, its gonna sell like hotcakes. If you don't like something, the best, and only, course of action you should take, is not consume it. If people wouldn't had made a fuss about it, chances are, this game wouldn't have ever amount to anything, it would be released, played by a few, and then promptly disappeared because it lacks any remarkable angle.
But because of the insane efforts to get it off the air, they've all but guaranteed its immortality.
Post by
Monday
Thanks to this sensationalism, the game has been given an Adult Only rating. Seriously? Normally the AO rating is given when there is very explicit and graphic pornographic content in the game.
Not really. These are the guildelines for an AO rating, straight from the ESRB.
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up.
May include prolonged scenes of intense violence
, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.
If going out and murdering a bunch of innocent people for &*!@s and giggles isn't prolonged, intense violence, then I'll eat my hat.
accusing the developers of being neo-nazis.
To be fair to them, the developers were originally seen wearing shirts tied to an extreme anti-communist group with Neo-Nazi ties. Apparently they weren't really affiliated with the group and just hate communists (okay?), which is why they were wearing the shirt. It's not such a big leap to assume that they're with the group they're wearing the shirt of.
Post by
Rankkor
Thanks to this sensationalism, the game has been given an Adult Only rating. Seriously? Normally the AO rating is given when there is very explicit and graphic pornographic content in the game.
Not really. These are the guildelines for an AO rating, straight from the ESRB.
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up.
May include prolonged scenes of intense violence
, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.
If going out and murdering a bunch of innocent people for &*!@s and giggles isn't prolonged, intense violence, then I'll eat my hat.
Killing innocent people for nothing more than a laugh is violence, yes. But "
intense
" violence? please. Dead Space is waaaaaay more violent. There doesn't go a second in the game that something very graphic and gory isn't taking place, either to the protagonist, his enemies, or random people he stumbles across. And that game didn't get an AO rating.
Likewise, in every grand theft auto game under the sun, (And its derivatives like Saints Row and the like) you can spend hours upon hours doing nothing but killing pedestrians for no real reason. None of them have an AO rating except San Andreas.
And why is that? ahhh yes, to placate another stupid controversy. See where this is going?
accusing the developers of being neo-nazis.
To be fair to them, the developers were originally seen wearing shirts tied to an extreme anti-communist group with Neo-Nazi ties. Apparently they weren't really affiliated with the group and just hate communists (okay?), which is why they were wearing the shirt. It's not such a big leap to assume that they're with the group they're wearing the shirt of.
I hate communists too (can you blame me? the crap they've done in my country is inhumane) but does that mean if I make a game that upsets people, they have the right to call me a nazi? Notice how the article tries to claim that the game is about murdering ethnic minorities, when its not. Just like Anita tried to claim its a game about murdering women, when its not. Its this type of sensationalist journalism that I despise.(##RESPBREAK##)520##DELIM##Rankkor##DELIM##
Post by
Monday
And why is that? ahhh yes, to placate another stupid controversy. See where this is going?
I see where this is going. It's because of the context of those games. The intensity of violence is relative, and obviously the ESRB consider murdering innocent people to be more intense than fighting space zombies. GTA isn't specifically about killing pedestrians, though you can (just like how you can in Fallout, Skyrim, etc). However, the games explicit purpose is to go on a mass murder spree. That is intense, moreso than the other games. You HAVE to consider context.
I hate communists too (can you blame me? the crap they've done in my country is inhumane) but does that mean if I make a game that upsets people, they have the right to call me a nazi?
...did you miss the part where they were wearing the shirt of a group with Neo-Nazi links?
Post by
Rankkor
And why is that? ahhh yes, to placate another stupid controversy. See where this is going?
I see where this is going. It's because of the context of those games. The intensity of violence is relative, and obviously the ESRB consider murdering innocent people to be more intense than fighting space zombies. GTA isn't specifically about killing pedestrians, though you can (just like how you can in Fallout, Skyrim, etc). However, the games explicit purpose is to go on a mass murder spree. That is intense, moreso than the other games. You HAVE to consider context.
I have considered context. Wanna know why San Andreas was the only GTA game to date to be given an AO rating? it wasn't because you could slaughter pedestrians for hours if you chose to, after all, that's a feature in all GTA games.
It was because of the "Hot Coffee" scandal. Namely, the developers had included an interactive sex minigame on GTA: San Andreas, but then late during development they removed it (for good reasons, it was poorly coded, it was annoying, unfun, clunky as hell, added nothing to the gameplay, and actually made the dating aspect of the game needlessly hard). So the mini-game was removed, but the coding for it was still in there, and a user-made mod, unlocked said minigame. Even though the "sex" was between 2 fully clothed people, and was as far removed from erotic as it can get (Animations were VERY creepy) it sparked controversy, and caused the game to get an AO rating.
Back to the context of
who
we're killing, it makes little difference to people wanting to arm a fuss. Back when the original DooM was released, it sparked an endless wave of controversy too because at the time, it was the most violent game ever made, and in that game, every single one of your targets
were
in fact, space zombies and demons. And people still were demanding it be given Adult classification and remove it from stores.
Even a full decade after its debut, people still used DooM as the go-to scapegoat whenever there was any violent crime committed (Such as the columbine shooters).
All of it stems from people who dislike a certain type of content, and then arm up a fuss and do everything in their power to censor that content, when the right reaction should be to just not consume it.
I hate communists too (can you blame me? the crap they've done in my country is inhumane) but does that mean if I make a game that upsets people, they have the right to call me a nazi?
...did you miss the part where they were wearing the shirt of a group with Neo-Nazi links?
I didn't. But the article I linked, apart from mentioning the t-shirts, also claimed the game was about murdering ethnic minorities, even though its not.
They were really reaching to try to "prove" their point.
Post by
Monday
Back to the context of who we're killing, it makes little difference to people wanting to arm a fuss. Back when the original DooM was released, it sparked an endless wave of controversy too because at the time, it was the most violent game ever made, and in that game, every single one of your targets were in fact, space zombies and demons. And people still were demanding it be given Adult classification and remove it from stores.
Even a full decade after its debut, people still used DooM as the go-to scapegoat whenever there was any violent crime committed (Such as the columbine shooters).
As the former, I don't see how this is relevant. There is an obvious difference between killing innocent people in a murder simulator than there is fighting literal demons from Hell.
As for the latter, I'm going to need some citations beyond the Columbine Shooting as for all the times that Doom has been blamed. The practice of blaming videogames for violence has been on the decline for years.
I didn't. But the article I linked, apart from mentioning the t-shirts, also claimed the game was about murdering ethnic minorities, even though its not.
They were really reaching to try to "prove" their point.
So one article claimed that. Sure. The majority of other people claiming that they were Nazis were not doing so because of the minorities in the game.
Also, have you considered that you're sensationalizing this just as much as the people you seem to despise are? You're falling right into their trap, and frankly I expected better from you. You never struck me as a hypocrite, and I'd hate to see it start now.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.