Subscribe to Listverse10 Images of Irony
- Published September 23, 2007 - 223 Comments
We were recently discussing Irony on the Top 10 Common English Language Errors, so I thought I would do a post of ironic images to clarify the points made there. So, in no particular order, here are 10 images of Irony.
Just paying the bills...
Recommended Lists
This list has 223 comments [Add Comment]
Have your say... [Read me first | Top of page, comments]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:01 am
Good stuff – definitely ironic
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:05 am
yup yup
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:12 am
My favorite is the third one. People are so dumb; using crosses and statues and such, when the bible clearly says to not use idols.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:41 am
The first one is my favorite. So perfect.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:50 am
rotationbias: mine too
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:37 am
haha love the last one!
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:39 am
One of my favorite lists so far.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
Juggz: yeah – talk about the worst timing ever to launch a campaign!
Ben: excellent – I am glad you liked it
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
The first one kills me… And the Cardinals shirt makes it all the more hilarious. Go Cubs!
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Jason: it is not wonder it has become a meme
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Okay, help me out, I don’t understand #4, with the women in burkas holding up a sign about the anti- I mean the pope.
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Fe: they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people. Oh – and I did get the sly dig
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Lol i love how the first guy is wearing a cardinals shirt! Cubbies all the way. This is one of the better lists good job
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
The first and the last ones are the best
xD I had a good laugh with them.
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Haha, I have seen a few compilations of pictures like these and I always enjoy them. Good list. xD
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I always thought Irony was meant to be a deliberate choice on the part of a writer, speaker, or artist.
Others may interpret things they read or see to be ironic, but that is their own deliberate choice, not that of the author or creator of the situation.
What these pictures show is not irony, as the situations are not intentionally created.
Sure they can be interpreted by us as being ironic, but that is our choice.
What these pictures truly show, is just what a bunch of Dumb F@cks there are in the world.
And isn’t that ironic
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Actually, Chinatat if you visit the top 10 common english errors list, youll find why this really is irony
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
jfrater – You know that I really enjoy your lists. However, I must respectfully disagree with your reasoning for including picture number four. Surely you are not suggesting that all Muslims “support terrorist bombings of innocent people”? Perhaps a more suitable example would be something along the lines of an anti-abortion protester holding a sign saying how God thinks all life is sacred so abortionists should be killed.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
first time to visit this site, and i loved what you posted here your no. 1 list surely hits the mark, i wonder what the guy said to the women when he took their picture “smile?”, one thing’s for sure they had a student driver in pic 5
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Respectfully disagree on the third one. The slabs there representing the ten commandments are symbols, not idols. There is a rather big difference.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
MHL: I know what you mean (i’m a Christian btw), but it is funny that they atleast appear to be bowing to the ten commandments.
Mathilda: I think another way of looking at is that they’re condemning the religious leader of another religion while from what it appears, they say nothing of the violent sects of Muslims. (Not perfect, I know, the Pope is the leader of all Catholics, and terrorists are just a sect)
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
great list …
enjoyed …
hehe …
September 24th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Thanks for the comments guys
Mathilda: I definitely wasn’t implying that – I am sorry it came across that way. The example you give is equally good, thanks
September 24th, 2007 at 6:14 am
This reminds me of a time I travelled through Illinois. When I entered the state there was this large sign stating “The people of Illinois welcome you” and right behind the sign was a giant cemetary.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:09 am
hahahaha that last one is awesome
September 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
The second one looks like a “Far Side” by Gary Larsen.This is great stuff!
September 24th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Ahhahaha great list! My favorite is number 2!!!!!!!! And this is completely irrelivant, but number 7 reminds me of this homeless person I saw on the side of the road holding a sign that said “family killed by ninjas, need money for kung fu lessons”………ahahhaha so funny! Thanks!
September 24th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Second to last one was hilarious; and example of irony to the max. If only the list had been longer!
September 25th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Thanks, Chris and jfrater. I see the point now. As a side note, with all of the religious pictures, is it a matter of irony, or hypocrisy?
Perhaps I’ll do a list of the Top Ten Hypocritical Statements by Religious Leaders! Of course, our host jfrater has set the bar so high with his lists that I fear falling short of the standard.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Mathilda: I think you could probably say it is both in the case of the image here – I guess what this shows is that while sarcasmus is an form of Irony, hipocratism is too. I bet Quintilian had something to say on this! 10 points to someone that can find a quote
September 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2007/09/24/ironey-defined/
September 26th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
This one seems relevant to the subject of irony, at least!
“Those who wish to appear wise among fools, among the wise seem foolish.” Quintilian De Institutione Oratoria
September 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
9000: perfect example
Mathilda: ah! Don’t you love Quintilian?!
October 21st, 2007 at 5:50 am
On the topic of religion and terrorism, the issue of hiding one’s features surely ranks among provocative actions. Black balaclavas worn by IRA and PLO members and white hoods of the KKK are meant to keep people from being identified and so avoid arrest in relation to their violent activities. Similarly, some muslim terrorists have worn hijab to evade arrest. Anyone who wears a head-to-toe covering is a reminder of that.
You’d be likely to say the same thing about someone wearing a swastika armband, a confederate flag, a soviet hammer and sickle.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:17 am
David: that is a very good point. Thanks.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:51 am
About number four… what’s so immoral/mentally unbalanced? I mean, in some countries people can walk around naked, some places lasses can walk around topless. They might look at our covering up of t*ts rules in the same way as a lot of us see their wearing the bhurka (is that the right word?)
October 21st, 2007 at 7:09 am
Hobolad: It is not about them wearing full covering – it is about the fact that we hear virtually nothing from Islamic people in protest to their own people about the immoral terrorist attacks and threats – but in the picture they are complaining about the Pope being immoral. Whether they are covered up or not is not relevant.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 am
Ah ok! I thought it was a continuation of number 2, y’know?
But I’m pretty sure there’ve been protests against terrorism and whatnot, our news just doesn’t report it ’cause the current trend is, sadly, to bash Islam in general.
Entertaining list though, so it’s done it’s job
October 29th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Just stumbled across this, and that first one is hilarious! I would like to point out, though, that #4 seems like quite an offensive statement to be making – it’s only ironic if you assume that all muslims are terrorists. In this case, I’m guessing, they were protesting against Pope Benedicts use of Manuel II Paleologus’ text that said “you will find things only evil and inhuman” in Islam. I’m pretty sure if an Islamic imam said that about Christianity, you’d all be up in arms. So what’s ironic about them exercising their right to protest against a slur on their religion?
October 30th, 2007 at 1:03 am
excantare: read over the comments – my intentions in including that image are clearly explained there
October 30th, 2007 at 4:23 am
I thought #4 was about the word ‘balance’ which is written in a very unbalanced way
It’s probably not the main ‘joke’ but it is funny!
October 31st, 2007 at 4:51 am
jfrater: Yeah, I did read over the comments and that’s what prompted me to post
I suppose I just instinctively disagree with your theory that “they support terrorist bombings of innocent people”. I don’t think you can assume that these people in particular, or muslims/middle eastern residents in general, support terrorism. Here in Australia, we don’t have daily marches against terrorism, yet we are against it strongly. And I was in Jordan, Turkey and Cairo for six months last year, with a short stop in Palestine, for an archaeological dig, and most people we met outside the dig were very anti-terorism. Especially in Palestine and Cairo, where the people we hired to help us dig were just sick of the fighting, and wanted to get on with their lives in peace and economic prosperity. Some muslims do bomb, true, but some christians do too (Oklahoma City bombers, etc.) so I don’t think you can extrapolate the theory across all middle eastern residents. That’s all I meant 
November 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
All of these are a scream, but the second one down is the best. The others could at least be explained away,….a little. But the guy photographing the masked women. WHAT’S THE POINT OF EVEN TAKING THE PICTURE?!?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
dave4248: tell me about it! I agree completely. Why is there so much irony in islam?
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
These are not ironic. at all. check this out:
Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history). Irony may also arise from a discordance between acts and results, especially if it is striking, and seen by an outside audience. Irony is understood as an aesthetic evaluation by an audience, which relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal, and which is variously applied to texts, speech, events, acts, and even fashion. All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I like the obesity/McDonald’s one.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:37 am
Nice collection of photos thanx for sharing it
jasmine
December 18th, 2007 at 9:40 am
sweet! :p
December 21st, 2007 at 12:54 am
I agree with excantare. We also have no way of knowing if those particular people protesting the pope’s offensive, bigoted comments are in favor of terrorism or whether they conducted an anti-terrorism march the next day. Indeed, we have no way of knowing if there’s an anti-terrorism picket just off camera. Assuming they support terrorism because of their religion is just ignorant.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
The error that western cultures make is to classify islam is only a religion. Islam has always been as much a political party as a religion since Mohommad. Giving muslims a pass because of religon is as dangerous as saying most Nazi’s didn’t support the holocaust, so we can’t blame them for being Nazi’s. Polls have shown that over thirty percent of muslums in the United States support suicide bombing and are willing to admit it. So in response to Nopes comment I would say that assuming someone supports terrorism because of there ethnicity may be ignorant, but if they’re muslim it is a reasonable assumption that they support any effort to destroy the infidels.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:24 am
hey, jf. how do u know they support terrorist bombings of innocent people? pic 4#
December 24th, 2007 at 1:36 am
mierah: please read over the previous comments – they explain my reasons for including that image.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
oh, yeah, jf, we do protest against our own people (u know, the terrorists) it’s just that cnn doesn’t make it their headline news. I live in malaysia, and it’s an islamic country, but most of us are against it. That’s all
December 29th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
er, against terrorism, not malaysia being an islamic country, btw XD
December 30th, 2007 at 3:03 am
mierah: thanks for the comment – I am very interested to hear that. Can you recommend some source online that I might be able to see evidence of these protests? It would certainly be nice to see both sides of the story from time to time!
January 1st, 2008 at 2:36 am
sure, here’s one website http://www.nst.com.my/
enjoy
January 1st, 2008 at 3:00 am
the really interesting ones are in malay, and since i doubt that you can read it, i didn’t bother. search for “terrorism” in a box on the lower left corner of the screen.
January 25th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I don’t find the 4th pic funny at all….
January 28th, 2008 at 10:50 am
The funny thing is, on the last picture, the models on the two ads may well be the same!
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 am
i love the last one. it seems to me that doctors tell you to eat healthy then go out to Tubbys Taco palace.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
These are awesome!! They are all really great examples of irony. Bravo to the photographer.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:01 am
This is one list that bears an act 2, act 3, and…
June 20th, 2008 at 9:21 am
the 1st one is hilarious! And the mcdonalds one, also. Complete Home repairs. Yeah. Right. The one with the crashed van looks photoshopped to me. And I agree. What’s the point of taking a picture?
Great list.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
At least no one said anything about Missouri,Ive seen the first photo many times,and people keep bashing us Missourians. Saying were stupid people because of a F-ing person wearing a cardinal ’s T-shirt. I happen to have a 4.0 GPA! Take that society!
(Thanks for not downing us! we have them-there feelins’ two!)
August 14th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
funny stuff!
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I thought the ‘ironic’ part of number 3 was that the head of the person on the right-hand-side is covering the commandments in such a way that it reads “Do murder; Do it”.
Maybe that’s just me.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Great! The last one’s my favorite. And totally true, Damo.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Wow, people take this stuff way too seriously… #4 is not meant to be offensive people.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Is number 5 really irony? I understand it’s a safe driving school, but you never really expect a vehicle to crash into any building. I think the safe driving school is just coincidence.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
ROFLMAO
September 12th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
No, number 4 is offensive. Jfrater – you knew exactly why you put it up, you even say “it is about the fact that we hear virtually nothing from Islamic people in protest to their own people about the immoral terrorist attacks and threats – but in the picture they are complaining about the Pope being immoral. Whether they are covered up or not is not relevant.”
No, it’s very relevant. If they weren’t covered you wouldn’t have put it up. You assumed that wearing a burka meant not only being Islamic but also a supporter of terrorism. Have you visited Islamic countries and ‘heard nothing from them’ about opposition to terrorism? And, more importantly, why should they not protest against other things as well? Are you suggesting that sign (and every other one held by an islamic person) should read ‘I oppose terrorism’?
Why not put up a picture of someone holding a shamrock and a ‘I hate the pope’ sign, assuming it to be irony because ‘nothing is heard from the irish about the IRA’?
I personally think ‘they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people’ is disgusting and the most racist, bigoted thing I’ve heard in quite some time.
October 4th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Hahaha, the last one is so funny.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Wow, I know where picture #8 is from. Gave me quite a start at first. That’s right outside Newark, NJ. I always thought that sign was hilarious.
October 12th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Damo-Number 2 ya mean?
The irony of it is that the headstone on the left says do not bow down,and they are all bowing
October 12th, 2008 at 9:21 am
OH! MY! GOD! My favourite list so far. I especially love the women being photographed.
December 31st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
have ya’ll seen the one of the KKK member being treated by an all black emergency room staff???
February 5th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Awesome list… hilarious.
Definately one of my favourites!
February 5th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
If you’re going to keep the one about Muslims protesting (because it’s oh so ironic that they aren’t protesting another, separate issue,) then maybe you should put photos up of similarly themed things. For example:
- Irish people protesting about the war in Iraq.
- Australians protesting about anything other than the treatment of Aboriginals.
- Japanese people not protesting about whaling,
etc. Any of which would be equally ‘ironic’.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Stupid Cubs supporters :p
St. Louis FTW!!!11
March 7th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Not protesting about terrorism means they agree with it? Damn, I knew I should of gone on one of those bridge walks, apparently they made a difference.
April 19th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The first and third ones are definitely the best.
April 26th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
rhat goes to show that common sense is not so common…
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:24 am
completely agree with “what?”…..
May 5th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Jfrater, while you say your intention was not to be offensive, posting #4 as an example of irony just demonstrates your prejudiced worldview and cultural centrism. We’re all guilty of such prejudice — how can anyone truly know the ins and outs of a society in which they do not live fully? — your subsequent attempts to talk your way out of responsibility for this post are, to be eloquent, lame. I completely agree with #72 — you were lazy, saw Islamic dress and a protest sign and assumed the worst. It’s analogous to racial profiling. I just stumbled here and clearly this posting is old, but given the widespread prejudice against Muslims (at least in the Western, white world) as evidenced by comment 51, I think the responsible thing to do would be to take this down.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
85. hadtocomment : ROFL! One picture, one that you found offensive, and suddenly this list needs to be damned to the depths of hell (i.e – taken off LV)?
The fact of the matter is that “they” – the people in the picture – claim that the Pope has lost his moral balance. When they’re all wearing clothes that conceal them from head to toe, with no more than inches of skin showing. They’re being worse than ironic, I find it more hipocritical. They’re taking a subjective thing – morality – and assumung that they’re right and the Pope is wrong. I think that if this list was ordered, I would put that at No.1, not because it’s the most ironic, but because it is the most insanely ignorant.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Mark – please explain yourself further. They are taking a subjective thing and protesting about it, but it’s not hypocritical. Are you saying people have no right to criticise the morals of others?
And the fact they choose to dress as they do doesn’t reflect on other morals they may or may not have. You’re assuming (and being by your own defintion hypocritical) that something is inherently ‘wrong’ with wearing a burka.
Please address these points.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
For those who are complaining about the burka – read my comment 38.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:46 am
No, Jfrater. This is not sufficient.
YOU hear nothing from the Islamic world. I’m sure there are people (burka-wearing or not) that condemn the terrorist attacks. These people could be some of them. You are assuming because they are islamic that they support (or at least don’t speak out against) terrorism.
This is blatant racism.
As I’ve said above, why not have:
- Irish people protesting about the war in Iraq.
- Australians protesting about anything other than the treatment of Aboriginals.
- Japanese people not protesting about whaling.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:58 am
What? Exactly what race have I shown a hatred of? Last time I looked Islam was not a race.
Your examples fail as well. Your examples are based on race (Irish, Japanese, Australian) – not religion as in the above.
May 24th, 2009 at 1:05 am
Okay, why not show Catholics protesting about something other than IRA bombings?
Why not show Jewish people protesting against something other than Israel’s treatment of Palestine?
Why not show Christians (any sort really) protesting against something other than America’s (a Christian Nation) treatment of prisoners at Abu Gharib?
I take back my ‘racist’ statement and replace it with a word that implies pre-judgement or blanket assumptions that does not specifically refer to race.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:24 am
It’s been a good few days now.
Any response?
May 28th, 2009 at 5:34 am
87. What? : Sorry I didn’t notice this earlier, I’ve been pretty busy lately. The fact of the matter is that the women pictured are claiming that the Pope has lost his moral BALANCE, when they’re wearing robes that cloak them from head-to-toe – which they would notice isn’t very well “balanced” so to speak, if they looked at it from a non-theist’s POV. That’s what I read into it anyway.
JFray put it very well in 38, if you won’t accept that, frankly, you’re a moron. There’s no other way to put it, you must be very closed-minded and scared of anything that *could* insult someone in any conceivable way, at all, in the history of forever.
89. What? : Fail. As Jamie put it, Islam isn’t a race, they are a religion. And what do you mean “Australians”, do the during/post-Vietnam War immigrants have to feel crappy for the Indigenous Australians? What the hell did they do to them?
91. What? : “Okay, why not show Catholics protesting about something other than IRA bombings…”
Hmm… Let’s see… Irish Catholic… I’m sure there was another type that has never bombed anyone… Stupid me I guess… No, wait… Roman? Roman Catholic? Yes, no? You’re a fucking moron?
“…Why not show Christians (any sort really) protesting against something other than America’s (a Christian Nation) treatment of prisoners at Abu Gharib…”
Wasn’t there that whole seperation of Church and State thing? Maybe that was just me hallucinating…
May 28th, 2009 at 5:39 am
I think I can win this simply by re-posting exactly something you’ve said:
“91. What? : “Okay, why not show Catholics protesting about something other than IRA bombings…”
Hmm… Let’s see… Irish Catholic… I’m sure there was another type that has never bombed anyone… Stupid me I guess… No, wait… Roman? Roman Catholic? Yes, no? You’re a fucking moron?”
May 28th, 2009 at 5:47 am
94. What? : Sure, refute *one* of my poorly articulated points, don’t bother with the others. No-one will notice anyway, right?
May 28th, 2009 at 5:49 am
94. What? : Also, how are you going to find pictures of “Catholics” do they look distinctive like, say, Muslims? Not quite, dick.
That image wasn’t meant to insult anyone, it’s people like you that *have* to take it to the next level – i.e. Everything has got to be perfectly equal – that screw these up with your bullshit comments.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:59 am
Do you have even the slightest comprehension that perhaps:
1. These people might be choosing to wear burkas?
2. Their wearing of a burka is in no way implicity ‘unbalanced’?
3. These people are extremely likely to have absolutely nothing to do with terrorist bombings?
4. That in the same way that you can’t expect ALL Catholics to protest about ‘Catholic’ bombings in Ireland, you can’t expect ALL Muslims to protest about ‘Muslim’ terrorist attacks?
5. That discriminating on the basis of religion is equally as abhorrent as discriminating based on race? Saying that Jfrater is not ‘racist’ is technically correct, but it would still seem that he (and you) are prejudiced.
Do you understand why I repeated what you said? Does it make sense that ‘Roman Catholic’ is different to ‘Irish Catholic’ in the same way that these Muslims could be different to other Muslims?
Do you understand any of those extremely simple and extremely fundamental points?
May 28th, 2009 at 6:01 am
Post 96:
Yes, you could find a picture of a priest (in robes) protesting against something. Then say it’s “ironic” because he’s not protesting about other priests molesting children.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:19 am
98. What?: I partially agree with that statement and some of the posts….but to call it prejudice is a bit silly. Many pictures above could be taken as such, but were not. For example…the first picture. It could be taken as such that we are picking on the southern man due to what I can see in the background. We shouldn’t be reading too much into these. It was listed under “humor” for a reason.
As a side note….post number 35 summed it up nicely. Impression is everything. We see first whether it was a nazi armband, KKK outfit or even the full robes. It’s unfortunate that the burkas now have a negative context and are thrown in with the above.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:00 am
97 What? : Good effort, and I appreciate the good points, but not quite.
“…That discriminating on the basis of religion is equally as abhorrent as discriminating based on race? Saying that Jfrater is not ‘racist’ is technically correct, but it would still seem that he (and you) are prejudiced…”
No… in no way is that statement true. A black person can’t just take off that burka when they want to avoid suspicion.
“…Do you understand any of those extremely simple and extremely fundamental points?”
I understand all of them, better than you in fact, no need to get snappy.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:04 am
98 What? : Yes, yes you could. However, why bother? This is a fucking *humour* list you wanker. I’m sorry for the harsh words and I know that I probably won’t appreciate them tomorrow, but frankly, that’s what you are. Why are you making a mountain of a molehill? Why must you make this so painfully tedious? Can’t you just look at the list and laugh, like a normal person? It doesn’t make you racist, because I’m definitely not. It doesn’t make you bigoted in any way, shape or form. So just fucking *drop it*, nobody wants to have you here, picking apart otherwise enjoyable lists. It’s just bloody annoying mate.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“No… in no way is that statement true.”
So you’re saying it’s okay to discriminate on the basis of religion?
“I understand all of them, better than you in fact”
What are you basing that on? (Please give reasons without swearing or attacking me personally rather than the points I’m giving.)
“no need to get snappy.”
Please take your own advice.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
102 What?: I believe Mark was pointing out how *your* statement was true in regards to himself and jfrater. He probably should have cleaned that up a little. There is no need to discriminate for religion, sex, creed or orientation.
However…this is a humor list. It was meant to be funny and I can see the humor in it. Does this mean we are picking on a religion or a people? No. Just pointing out the irony/funny from the picture. It’s still a serious subject for what they might be protesting for, but there can be humor found in everything.
We, humans, are slowing losing our sense of humor…which is a pity.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Let’s summarise:
Picture number four is ‘ironic’ either because:
1) They’re wearing burkhas which is ‘morally unbalanced’ so how can THEY criticise the pope?
e.g: “the women pictured are claiming that the Pope has lost his moral BALANCE, when they’re wearing robes that cloak them from head-to-toe – which they would notice isn’t very well “balanced” so to speak”
or
2) They support terrorist bombings of innocent people, which is clear from the picture because they’re wearing burkhas, so they shouldn’t be protesting against other things.
e.g.: “it is about the fact that we hear virtually nothing from Islamic people in protest to their own people about the immoral terrorist attacks and threats – but in the picture they are complaining about the Pope being immoral. Whether they are covered up or not is not relevant.”
and:
“they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people”
June 1st, 2009 at 8:18 pm
102 What? : “…So you’re saying it’s okay to discriminate on the basis of religion?…”
No, what gave you that idea. Quite simply, you saying that disciminating against someone because of their religious beliefs is *as bad* as racism is a farce, because, in no way is that true. I would be the last one to be discriminating against others because of their beliefs.
“…What are you basing that on? (Please give reasons without swearing or attacking me personally rather than the points I’m giving.)…”
Umm, the fact that I realise that discrimination against religious beliefs isn’t as bad as racism.
“…Please take your own advice.”
There was very good reason for me to be annoyed while I was typing my comment, namely, your farce of a post.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
103 oouchan : “…He probably should have cleaned that up a little…”
Aye, I should’ve, and I apologize for that, but 10:45pm isn’t the best time for me to be posting the day after getting only *four* hours sleep. One off my quota…
“…There is no need to discriminate for religion, sex, creed or orientation…”
Of course there isn’t, but you can’t tell me that all of those forms of discrimination are as bad as each other can you? Sexual orientation and religion don’t *have* to be advertised everytime you’re in public. Your darker skin or those lumps on your chest on the other hand…
“…However…this is a humor list. It was meant to be funny and I can see the humor in it. Does this mean we are picking on a religion or a people? No. Just pointing out the irony/funny from the picture…”
Thank you! Said like a truly wise person who can just step back and enjoy when it’s appropriate.\
“…We, humans, are slowing losing our sense of humor…which is a pity.”
Some of us maybe… I’m still laughing a lot, at pretty much everything I see, as usual.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:28 pm
104 What? : You miss the point, of life in general. Jamie is not a mean or evil-spirited person, and he has never used this brilliant – if I may say so without sucking up too much
– blog to further anything of a politically, religiously or racially discrimatory nature. So just drop it, because :
a) Seriously, no-one cares, this is a humour list. If you laughed at it, good for you. If you didn’t because of *one* picture you insanely thought was disciminatory, then I pity you, I think you’re missing a happy gene.
b) It’s not going to get taken off or changed, so just stop.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
106 Mark:
“Of course there isn’t, but you can’t tell me that all of those forms of discrimination are as bad as each other can you? Sexual orientation and religion don’t *have* to be advertised everytime you’re in public. Your darker skin or those lumps on your chest on the other hand…”
No. I would agree partially with that. Not each is bad as say sex or sexual orientation. I chose those 2 because that would affect *me* more than it would you. Whereas someone else might choose skin color and religion. It’s in the eye of the beholder. However, it’s still wrong to discriminate on *those* items mentioned (sex, orientation, religion, creed, skin color…etc). Not liking someone because they are a criminal…well, then you got a whole new ballgame.
I would agree with you that there is no need to advertise who or what you are if it’s not actively known. But when it is known, then making sure not to discriminate would be a wise choice in my mind.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:56 pm
108 oouchan : “…Not liking someone because they are a criminal…well, then you got a whole new ballgame…”
They did something stupid in the past, do they need to be punished for it again? Likewise, a homosexual man is so because of his last fling right? I mean, at least he has a chance to redeem himself, what can an ex-con do to clear his name? It’s a bit unfair, *in my eyes*, but you obivously see it differently, therefore, hypothesis proved :
“…It’s in the eye of the beholder…”
BTW, I scored four goals at outdoor soccer on Friday night, we won 4-2
June 1st, 2009 at 10:09 pm
109 Mark: I should have clarified that ‘criminal’ remark. I was talking about heinous crimes and repeat offenders. Not chance at redemeption…period. But true…it is in the eye of the beholder.
So I take it you won the game for everyone, eh? Congrats on the win!
I spent the last weekend playing softball. I couldn’t run (had to use a runner), but I got 1 home run and several base hits. I was proud of myself since I hadn’t played in about 15 years.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:17 pm
110 oouchan : “…I was talking about heinous crimes and repeat offenders. Not chance at redemeption…period…”
Ahh, but when is there truly no chance for redemption?
“…So I take it you won the game for everyone, eh? Congrats on the win…”
Sure did, I only got 1 good pass all game, off which I scored one of the goals. The rest were all Mark… we just won’t mention the fact that all I had to do was run at these fullbacks and they’d trip over their own feet
“…I spent the last weekend playing softball. I couldn’t run (had to use a runner), but I got 1 home run and several base hits…”
That’s not bad, running would probably be the only thing I could do in softball though. I trust you had fun?
June 1st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
111 Mark: “Ahh, but when is there truly no chance for redemption?” In those cases…none what-so-ever, to me anyways.
“That’s not bad, running would probably be the only thing I could do in softball though. I trust you had fun?”
Running is part of the fun…too bad I had to miss it. Yes, I had loads of fun. Can’t believe I did as well as I did. I hope to play again at another game in 2 weeks. Can’t this weekend since I have to work.
Will pick this up tomorrow. Off to bed for me. (ps…check out the ‘your view on the creationism’. We got a bite)
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:45 am
“Does this mean we are picking on a religion or a people? No. Just pointing out the irony/funny from the picture…””
Can you please explain how you’re pointing out the irony/funny without picking on a religion/people in this case?
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 am
Also if I could address:
“For example…the first picture. It could be taken as such that we are picking on the southern man due to what I can see in the background.”
No. The irony in that picture is clearly his mis-spelling of ‘morons’, suggesting he himself is stupid. It would work equally well with a person of any race, religion or gender, even if the sign was displayed without anyone holding it.
In the case of picture number 4, wearing a burkha or being a member of the Muslim faith neither implies being morally unbalanced or supporting terrorists.
There’s a clear distinction.
Think about this: Would number 4 be equally as ‘ironic’ if a white person in a business suit was holding the sign?
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 am
113 What? : “…Can you please explain how you’re pointing out the irony/funny without picking on a religion/people in this case?”
Quite simple. It’s ironic for a Muslim to be pointing fingers at other religions at this period in time. Before you comment, that’s a fact. I’m not bigoted at all – except against morons maybe – but the fact of the matter is that Islam isn’t exactly the most friendly religion out there. Face it, the Sunnis and Shi’ites are fighting each other, for what?
The fact of the matter is that Jamie wasn’t picking on the. He wasn’t saying anything like, “Muslims are stupid,” nor did he even imply anything like that. Your point was that that could work just as well with a Catholic complaining about anything except blah blah blah. How is it fair to pick one over the other? Which one is more relevant to the majority of the world at the present moment? How would it be fairer for Jamie to have picked Catholics? It wouldn’t have, so stop acting like you’re standing up for Muslims everywhere or anything farcically along those lines. Because, frankly, all you’re doing is being a picky jackass.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 am
114 What? : “…No. The irony in that picture is clearly his mis-spelling of ‘morons’, suggesting he himself is stupid. It would work equally well with a person of any race, religion or gender, even if the sign was displayed without anyone holding it…”
No, if it was being held by someone who is known to be very intelligent, Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking for example, it could be taken as merely teasing stupid people by misspelling a word. Much like a written malpropism.
We’re not being religioust, or racist, or sexist, we’re being realist. Get with the reality of life or you’ll find yourself jumping out of a window when you get discriminated against for being a pasty white kid who has nothing better to do then bitch about a humour list on LV. You’re a joke mate, you really are.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 am
“It’s ironic for a Muslim to be pointing fingers at other religions at this period in time.”
No, it’s not. Like I’ve said earlier, expecting ALL Muslims to behave a certain way because some of them do things we find objectionable is ridiculous. They’re free to point the finger whenever they like seeing as they’re still humans beings.
It’s comments like yours that show that Jamie should never have put the picture up.
“The fact of the matter is that Jamie wasn’t picking on them. He wasn’t saying anything like, “Muslims are stupid,” nor did he even imply anything like that.”
But he was picking on them. He said “they support terrorist bombings of innocent people”. This is completely false. “They” in his sentence is the Muslims in the picture. He had absolutely no basis for saying that this group support terrorist bombings.
The second post – again with the personal comments. Please refrain from this. I am not offended in the slightest by your attacks but see them as attempts to avoid the issues I’m raising. Concentrate your efforts on rebutting my points rather than attacking the person you think is writing these comments.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
117 What? : “…No, it’s not. Like I’ve said earlier, expecting ALL Muslims to behave a certain way because some of them do things we find objectionable is ridiculous. They’re free to point the finger whenever they like seeing as they’re still humans beings…”
Agreed, but so are Catholics, so suddenly, you’re invalidating your own points as well? I don’t understand where you’re going with this. Circles are fun, unless you’re the person who’s not interested in running in them
“…It’s comments like yours that show that Jamie should never have put the picture up…”
It’s comments like yours that make me wonder why Jamie bothers with the comments section at all :’( Poor you.
“…But he was picking on them. He said “they support terrorist bombings of innocent people”. This is completely false. “They” in his sentence is the Muslims in the picture. He had absolutely no basis for saying that this group support terrorist bombings…”
Sure, Jamie put his previous thought in a poorly articulated sentence, that does not invalidate what I’m saying in the present. Read 38 with a clear and unbiased mind for Christ’s sake, let it soak in. Then we wouldn’t even be having this stupid and pointless argument.
“…The second post – again with the personal comments. Please refrain from this. I am not offended in the slightest by your attacks but see them as attempts to avoid the issues I’m raising. Concentrate your efforts on rebutting my points rather than attacking the person you think is writing these comments.”
Yes, the second half was rather personal. But the first half? I don’t hear you rebutting any of that? Methinks it’s because humour needs assumptions to make it funny. When people think that all of a sudden these assumptions are unreasonable, discriminatory or derogatory – rather than just to get a laugh, like a reasonable person would – then we wind up with tools like you arguing for the sake of arguing. LET IT GO, IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL!
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:24 am
“Sure, Jamie put his previous thought in a poorly articulated sentence, that does not invalidate what I’m saying in the present. Read 38 with a clear and unbiased mind for Christ’s sake, let it soak in.”
You can’t just make statements like that. Your argument has been that it’s not prejudiced, which Jamie’s comment would seem to show to not be true. And if you think it was poorly articulated, offer up an alternative. (Your use of ‘clear and unbiased’ is also problematic.)
Why also do you say it was poorly articulated then in the very next sentence suggest that I should read it?
“Agreed, but so are Catholics, so suddenly, you’re invalidating your own points as well? I don’t understand where you’re going with this. Circles are fun, unless you’re the person who’s not interested in running in them”
I don’t understand this point. So you’re agreeing now that it’s not ‘ironic for a Muslim to be pointing fingers at other religions at this period in time’? So you agree that it’s not ironic and should be taken off this ironic list?
“we wind up with tools like you arguing for the sake of arguing”
Either withdraw from this discussion or go about it in a reasonable (no personal insults!) manner, please.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 am
What?:
“Are you saying people have no right to criticise the morals of others?”
Now, just for the sake of argument… You say that people have the right to criticise the morals of others… OK, sure. But these women are wearing burkas which would imply that they adhere to certain morals and value judgements that I might find offensive as a Western female (ie- the necessity of women to cover up from head to toe for “modesty”, or the fact that some of these women cannot leave their own homes without a male escort, or that they are not properly schooled, cannot hold jobs, etc).
Do I find these morals and value judgements about the role of females in a society balanced? No. Do I go out and protest on the streets against them? No, to each his own (besides I would probably get insulted by someone like you because I am racist or bigoted or what have you).
If they can criticize, can I? You cannot give that right to some but not others…
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:18 am
113 What?: “Can you please explain how you’re pointing out the irony/funny without picking on a religion/people in this case?”
It’s not picking on a religion/people. It’s picking on the IDEALS of these people. They have a belief/ideal/thought that the pope is unbalanced while “posing” in garb that is a traditional part of the Muslim religion which *some* individuals use to cover themselves for the purpose of hiding their terrorist selves. THAT is why it’s funny/ironic.
More so, I would be more upset that someone is using *that* part of the religion to MOCK it. It would be the same as if a Christian used a cross to kill someone with. Just as wrong.
Hopefully you understand what we see. I can plainly see what you are seeing…can you not do the same?
I know that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. But some are and they are giving the rest of the Muslims a bad name. Many groups do this…Nazis and KKK come to mind. Does this mean all Germans are bad? Or that all southern white men? No.
“No. The irony in that picture is clearly his mis-spelling of ‘morons’, suggesting he himself is stupid. It would work equally well with a person of any race, religion or gender, even if the sign was displayed without anyone holding it.”
Not with the same impact. For example, it wouldn’t be ironic if it was a Chinese man or a business man in a suit. Many would dismiss the picture with no importance. It’s ironic because it’s an Southern American man. I could take offense to that since I am originally from the south…but I don’t because it’s funny.
“Think about this: Would number 4 be equally as ‘ironic’ if a white person in a business suit was holding the sign?”
Depends. Based on a picture…maybe not. But what if he was a terrorist. Does it matter what he is wearing? Nope. He would still be ironic.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“Depends. Based on a picture…maybe not. But what if he was a terrorist. Does it matter what he is wearing? Nope. He would still be ironic.”
Are you honestly suggesting the people in this picture are terrorists? Here we go again – it’s prejudiced because you are making an assumption that they are terrorists.
How can you tell if someone is a terrorist?
“*some* individuals use to cover themselves for the purpose of hiding their terrorist selves.”
Erm… no. How are they hiding their ‘terrorist selves’? Again it comes back to how you can tell someone is a terrorist by looking at them. You can’t. Wearing a burkha does not imply they’re terrorists.
Also, your use of ’some’ hits the nail on the head – some Muslim people have previously carried out terrorist attacks. But so have ’some’ Irish people. That doesn’t mean you can call all of them unbalanced or that the majority don’t have a right to protest. It’s offensive because it’s profiling ALL muslims to be ‘hiding their terrorist selves’.
“But some are and they are giving the rest of the Muslims a bad name.”
Are they giving Muslims a bad name, or are we because we’re assuming that a minority represents the majority? The only bad name they have is because we’re ascribing that to them.
120:
“Do I find these morals and value judgements about the role of females in a society balanced? No. Do I go out and protest on the streets against them? No, to each his own”
You’re choosing not to protest. You could, if you wanted to. Additionally, these people were protesting against the Pope (someone with significant influence), so it’s not really the same as protesting against a group for personally choosing to cover themselves.
You say to each his own – exactly. To each his/her own right to protest, no?
Saying that you personally object to their morals is one thing, denying them the right to protest or putting up a picture on a popular website then commenting that the irony derives from their support of terrorists is an entirely different (and inflammatory) thing.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
122 What?: Are you honestly suggesting the people in this picture are terrorists? Here we go again – it’s prejudiced because you are making an assumption that they are terrorists.
Uh…where did that come from? I said “But what if he was a terrorist?”…and you respond with that.
If you have knowledge that he was a terrorist beforehand…then where is the breakdown there? If you are talking about the picture (different sentence from this one) then how can I tell? I can’t. Just as I can’t tell that the 1st picture might or might not be a southern man or that picture #9 might or might not be in America. However…it’s the implication of it. What we see first.
How about this:
Do I agree that what we see first is right? NO.
Does it bother me? YES
Can I still find humor in it (even if it might be a wee bit wrong)? YES
That’s called human nature.
How can you tell if someone is a terrorist?
Almost all of them will call attention to themselves…that’s how you would know.
Erm… no. How are they hiding their ‘terrorist selves’? Again it comes back to how you can tell someone is a terrorist by looking at them. You can’t. Wearing a burkha does not imply they’re terrorists.
True…I didn’t say that wearing one imply that they are. It’s just they choose to wear them therefore hiding behind other Muslims and giving the rest a bad name. Does that not upset you?
For example…I follow the Shinto religion. If a person wearing the Shinto robes were to be a terrorist, I would be pissed. How dare that person go against the teachings and bring a mockery of what is being taught. Wouldn’t you feel the same?
Let me ask you a question. Do any of the pictures above upset you other than this one? Or is this the only one that bothers you? I ask not to get a better understanding but to point out that each picture is doing the same as picture #4. No difference. You are basing an opinion on what you see. So if #4 upsets you…then the rest should as well.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
119 What? : “…You can’t just make statements like that. Your argument has been that it’s not prejudiced, which Jamie’s comment would seem to show to not be true. And if you think it was poorly articulated, offer up an alternative. (Your use of ‘clear and unbiased’ is also problematic.)…”
a) My use of clear and unbiased isn’t problematic, you’re just picky. That’s not a personal insult, it’s a well documented fact.
b) My arguement has never been that it wasn’t prejudiced, just not unfairly so. As I said, I’m not racist, I’m realist. Assumptions are made everyday by everyone, including yourself, build a brigde mate.
“…Why also do you say it was poorly articulated then in the very next sentence suggest that I should read it?…”
I didn’t call 38 poorly articulated, I called some of Jamie’s other points poorly articulated.\
“…I don’t understand this point. So you’re agreeing now that it’s not ‘ironic for a Muslim to be pointing fingers at other religions at this period in time’? So you agree that it’s not ironic and should be taken off this ironic list?…”
My point is that you invalidated your above arguments about Catholics with your statement in 117. You’re going around in circles, and trying to paint me into a corner, which isn’t working too well for you.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:36 pm
122 What? : “…Are you honestly suggesting the people in this picture are terrorists? Here we go again – it’s prejudiced because you are making an assumption that they are terrorists…”
Are you mentally deficient mate? Can you read? For Christ’s sake, it doesn’t appear so from where I’m sitting… Where did that come from? Nowhere did oouchan say that those woman are terrorists. You’re trying to paint us into a corner as bigots and intolerant, trust me, give up, we’re not.
“…Erm… no. How are they hiding their ‘terrorist selves’? Again it comes back to how you can tell someone is a terrorist by looking at them. You can’t. Wearing a burkha does not imply they’re terrorists…”
No matter which way you look at it, this is a stupid comment. She emphasized *some*, seriously mate, think first.
“…Also, your use of ’some’ hits the nail on the head – some Muslim people have previously carried out terrorist attacks. But so have ’some’ Irish people. That doesn’t mean you can call all of them unbalanced or that the majority don’t have a right to protest. It’s offensive because it’s profiling ALL muslims to be ‘hiding their terrorist selves’…”
Not it’s not, it’s humour. All humour *needs* assumptions to be made. What about the rest of the pictures here? You don’t have any problems with No.1, do you? There are assumptions in it too, as I stated above. But that’s not that bad is it? I mean, he’s just a white, male, American, it’s no where *near* as bad as picking on Muslims. You’re a joke mate, and a bad one at that.
“…To each his/her own right to protest, no?…”
Not quite… I’m pretty sure even the mighty US of A, the bastion of freedom, has laws against inciting hate crimes…
“…Saying that you personally object to their morals is one thing, denying them the right to protest or putting up a picture on a popular website then commenting that the irony derives from their support of terrorists is an entirely different (and inflammatory) thing.”
No it is not. This is a *humour* list – maybe I need to start emphasizing that more – HUMOUR, humour, *humour*, *HUMOUR* it’s not meant to be taken seriously. Although you wouldn’t know it with tools like you lurking. You’re not even the unbiased, anti-bigot you think you are. You’re not complaining about No.1… you’re a joke.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
123 oouchan : Well said, that last paragraph was perfect. This guy just doesn’t get it, he’s against the assumptions being made about Muslims, but when it comes to a Southern white man, meh, who cares?
He really doesn’t get it, that’s what annoys me. He’s acting like a valiant crusader against bigotry, but just the ones he – as his seemingly bigoted self – is against.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
“Are you mentally deficient mate? Can you read?”
No, and yes. If you read the comment:
“But what if he was a terrorist. Does it matter what he is wearing? Nope”
The point I’m making is that you’re assuming that they are terrorists. You’re seeing the burkha and assuming they’re somehow connected. You say ‘what if he was a terrorist?’ as though we’d be able to tell. Let’s say that in picture 4, these people aren’t terrorists. Where is the irony? Wearing a burkha is not a sign of being morally unbalanced.
“No matter which way you look at it, this is a stupid comment. She emphasized *some*, seriously mate, think first.”
No, it’s not. You don’t even give reasons WHY it’s stupid. Do you understand that you can’t ’see’ a terrorist because they aren’t distinctive? That a terrorist covering themselves is no different from a terrorist completely naked – they can’t be distinguished from other people based on what they look like.
“My point is that you invalidated your above arguments about Catholics with your statement in 117. You’re going around in circles, and trying to paint me into a corner, which isn’t working too well for you”
Explain how. I’m using examples that don’t work (Catholics) to demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is. Do you understand?
“I mean, he’s just a white, male, American, it’s no where *near* as bad as picking on Muslims. You’re a joke mate, and a bad one at that.”
As I’ve said, you could have anyone holding that sign up and it would work. In number 4 you’re specifically basing the humour on there being some kind of moral deficiency amongst Muslims.
This is prejudiced.
“I didn’t call 38 poorly articulated, I called some of Jamie’s other points poorly articulated.”
but:
“Jamie put his previous thought in a poorly articulated sentence”
Apparently you were referring to one specific sentence. (‘his previous thought’, i.e.: singular). Specifically which one was it you happened to be talking about?
Does that mean you agree with:
Post 38: “it is about the fact that we hear virtually nothing from Islamic people in protest to their own people about the immoral terrorist attacks and threats”
Have you talked to any Muslims? Similarly, does one group of Muslims need to be excused by the rest? This comes back to the Catholic thing: Do Catholics from other countries need to protest against the IRA or are they seen as separate and not responsible?
Similarly, why should these people protest against unrelated attacks?
“You’re a joke mate, and a bad one at that.”
Qualify these comments. You’re saying things that sound nice without backing them up. Explain yourself more without being so petty.
For example:
“I’m not racist, I’m realist”
What does this mean? Saying you’re ‘realist’ doesn’t mean anything in this context.
If I could just go back to something you said earlier:
“It’s ironic for a Muslim to be pointing fingers at other religions at this period in time. Before you comment, that’s a fact. I’m not bigoted at all”
How is that not bigoted? How is that a fact?
Again with the personal comments. Stop doing this. I am not offended in the slightest by your attacks but see them as attempts to avoid the issues I’m raising. Concentrate your efforts on rebutting my points rather than attacking the person you think is writing these comments.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
126 Mark: Thank you. You also did a fantastic job of getting your point across.
~sigh
I guess I am exasperated because What? continues to focus only on the one picture, but that arguement can be used for all of them. Hopefully my point helps clarify where we are coming from.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“I guess I am exasperated because What? continues to focus only on the one picture, but that argument can be used for all of them. Hopefully my point helps clarify where we are coming from”
No, the argument can’t be used for other pictures.
Don’t you see that the rest have nothing to do with race/religion but number 4 specifically employs prejudiced stereotypes to derive any ‘irony’ from it.
The first picture is of a person holding a sign complaining about people being dumb, but his SIGN shows that he isn’t smart either.
You could have a man, a woman, a Catholic, an atheist, etc, instead of him. The irony is from his sign – it has nothing to do with him being southern american.
Number 4 bases its humour/irony on two ideas, either that:
1) Muslims are unbalanced because they cover themselves, or;
2) All Muslims should be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority.
Do you see how these are prejudiced?
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 pm
What? you are taking this way too personally. Chillax. Take a deep breath and move on. Nobody is forcing you to view this site. If something on it deeply and morally offends you, you are free to leave, never to return.
You are the one CHOOSING to be here, thus you are CHOOSING to be offended.
The fault lies with you, not with Jfrater, mark or oouchan
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Isn’t freedom of expression a bitch?
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
129 What?: No, the argument can’t be used for other pictures.
Don’t you see that the rest have nothing to do with race/religion but number 4 specifically employs prejudiced stereotypes to derive any ‘irony’ from it.
Actually it can. If we broke each picture down…here is what you get based on what you *see*.
1) Predudice against the southern man and America (clearly seen from background) – racial based
Picking on the homeless
2) Clearly picking on Muslims in this one because of the burkas – religion based
3) Picking on christians for bowing down before an idol – religion based
4) Your argument that it’s terrorists we see in the picture.
5) Picking on Mexicans due to the sign “Dez” – racial based
6) Picking on USA – racial based
7) Discrimination of homeless
9) Implied to be a muslim picking on USA – racial based
10) Picking on the obese – I consider this one racial as well.
Now we have a clear picture of what each is implying. Does it make it right? NO….but there is still humor to be found in each one.
Number 4 bases its humour/irony on two ideas, either that:
1) Muslims are unbalanced because they cover themselves, or;
2) All Muslims should be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority.
No…I didn’t get that from the picture. That is where you and I differ. I got a chuckle from it because I saw a group of individuals who didn’t want their faces seen picking on the pope for being unbalanced when they themselves aren’t confident enough to show who they are. I did NOT see them as muslims. I know a few muslims and they are nice people….nothing like what those who portray terrorist tendencies.
Do you see how these are prejudiced?
No…do you see the other pictures that way? Since you answered no in your previous post….then that sums up your whole arguement. You are upset that people are seeing *muslims* as terrorists. I am telling you that I don’t see that and that quite a few others don’t see it that way either.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Don’t know how that smiley ended up there for number 8…oh well.
cym…thank you. Freedom of expression is not only a bitch but also a 300 pound mac-daddy wanting to get up close and personal.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:13 am
While most of the pictures could be interpreted as a little offensive to somebody, #4 is the only one which relies on an offensive and bigoted assumption in order to have any humor value. #2 is different because the irony comes from the fact that the burkas cover the face; the joke would work for any other face-covering garb. #3 is ironic because people are bowing down to an object that tells them not to bow before objects. The rest are quite a stretch.
No one is saying that the site owner isn’t free to express himself. We’re just trying to point out how a particular image on this post is highly offensive.
If he wishes to smear Muslims, he is free to do so. We are also free to call him on it, hoping that the offense is unintentional, and, failing that, that other readers will learn something and think twice the next time they want to make such a joke.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 am
See 38 for Jfraters own explanation of why the picture was included. It isn’t there to smear muslims at all. Sense of humour differs for different people!
I agree with your final paragraph, but my point is this. As a wilful visitor to this site, if something offends you so badly you find yourself obliged to write post after post repeating yourself, getting angry and more offended that people do not hold your view, then you are free to leave and never visit the site again
Remember, freedom of expression comes with the freedom to be offended. People forgetting the latter part of that are the reason that us in the UK no longer have a Christmas Break anymore (its the Winter break now), and many schools have banned decorating and the singing of religious christmas carols…including my old one which used to go to church on the last day of term as few as 4 years ago.
Now I am not lugging you in with idiots who take PC above and beyond where it needs to go, I am just saying be rational about this. Its not as if this site is inciting religious hatred.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 am
9 isnt insulting america. It is all about the cartoon portraying the prophet mohammed, printed in Holland I believe – you can just see it in one of the cards in the background
Insult
Prophet
That is what I guess it is anyway.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:30 am
127 What? : “…The point I’m making is that you’re assuming that they are terrorists. You’re seeing the burkha and assuming they’re somehow connected. You say ‘what if he was a terrorist?’ as though we’d be able to tell. Let’s say that in picture 4, these people aren’t terrorists. Where is the irony? Wearing a burkha is not a sign of being morally unbalanced…”
Not only are you slow, you’re also hypocritical. Where did *I* even imply that I thought that these women were terrorists. Mate, I’m not the bigot here, *you* are the one who can’t accept that maybe someone who “doesn’t care” isn’t “evil” or “bad”.
“…No, it’s not. You don’t even give reasons WHY it’s stupid…”
Yes… I did… Maybe your whole “I *can* read” thing was maybe a bit more than you could handle. oouchan empasized *some*, she didn’t say anything about “all Muslims are terrorists”. You need to slow down, you’re going to hurt yourself.
“…Explain how. I’m using examples that don’t work (Catholics) to demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is. Do you understand?…”
Technically, it is my job to get the message through to you, according to “communicating theory”, but if you’re not going to make an effort, neither am I. My argument isn’t ridiculous, at least not compared to yours. Mine’s linear, your’s won’t stop going in circles. I understand, you’re just clinging onto anything you can. You remind me of a certain fundie that I was talking to on another list last month…
“…As I’ve said, you could have anyone holding that sign up and it would work. In number 4 you’re specifically basing the humour on there being some kind of moral deficiency amongst Muslims…”
You’ve just ignored what both oouchan and I have told you. You’re all for “you aren’t refuting my arguments, you’re only attacking me”, they’re not mutually exclusive. You’re the one who’s ignoring and avoiding. Look at some of the comments above, it *does* matter who’s holding that sign. You are utterly breathtaking sometimes… That was a solid effort, I haven’t been this royally peeved for a while.
“…Apparently you were referring to one specific sentence. (’his previous thought’, i.e.: singular). Specifically which one was it you happened to be talking about?…”
The one you quoted and then I replied to with that, dolt!
“…Have you talked to any Muslims? Similarly, does one group of Muslims need to be excused by the rest? This comes back to the Catholic thing: Do Catholics from other countries need to protest against the IRA or are they seen as separate and not responsible?…”
The true colour of your petticoat is showing now. Have you ever heard of Nazi Germany? How about Soviet Russia? Communist North Korea? Fidel Castro? I bet you think they were good ideas? If not, why are you making an effort to restrict one’s rights?
“…Qualify these comments. You’re saying things that sound nice without backing them up. Explain yourself more without being so petty…”
I have been… If you want to ignore what I’m saying, go ahead. But you can’t turn around and reply with a statement like that, that is what I would call a farce.
“…What does this mean? Saying you’re ‘realist’ doesn’t mean anything in this context…”
Yes… it does. Just because you can’t grasp that out in the big, bad world, Muslims *are* blowing people up – in much greater quantities than any Catholics, that is why it’s more relevant – then you should read some newspapers sometime.
“…How is that not bigoted? How is that a fact?…”
Read the news. It’s a fact, and therefore, not a bigoted opinion. Fair enough, these Muslims probably haven’t done the slightest thing wrong. For argument’s sake we’ll assume that they haven’t, but how can they turn around and have a snipe at the Pope? Don’t pretend it’s for any other reason than because he’s a Catholic, that would be a fallacy of the highest order. They could be holding a sign condeming Osama, but are they? No! Why would we care about him? He’s killing infidels! It’s not as if his moral deficiencies are 1000 times greater than Benedicts, oh no. The Pope is obviously *much* worse. That’s my point.
“…Concentrate your efforts on rebutting my points…”
Don’t throw stones from glass houses.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
129 What? : “…Don’t you see that the rest have nothing to do with race/religion but number 4 specifically employs prejudiced stereotypes to derive any ‘irony’ from it…”
Yet again? Race, religion? Not equal issues, definitely not fair to call someone bigoted against Muslims as bad as someone bigoted against white people.
“…The first picture is of a person holding a sign complaining about people being dumb, but his SIGN shows that he isn’t smart either.
You could have a man, a woman, a Catholic, an atheist, etc, instead of him. The irony is from his sign – it has nothing to do with him being southern american…”
That’s a fallacy. If Albert Einstein or some other, highly-educated, well-known academic were holding the sign, the implication would not be of a lack of intelligence on their behalf, would it? The Cardinals – up the Redbirds!!! – shirt, and white skin draw on “white Southerner = a bit slow” a racial, cultural and – to an extent – geographical stereotype. Keep up.
“…Number 4 bases its humour/irony on two ideas, either that:
1) Muslims are unbalanced because they cover themselves, or;
2) All Muslims should be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority.
Do you see how these are prejudiced?”
Read 137, for fuck sake read it and actually make an effort to understand it.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 am
134 SuzieQ : “…While most of the pictures could be interpreted as a little offensive to somebody, #4 is the only one which relies on an offensive and bigoted assumption in order to have any humor value…”
No, that’s wrong. For God’s sake, Jamie isn’t saying that those women are terrorists, KEEP UP! He’s saying that Muslims pointing the finger at anyone except Osama or his ilk is a bit, short-sighted.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
I found your reasoning confusing and lacking in comment 137/138.
You didn’t articulate anything; you replied to my questions or rebuttals of your points with trivial matters and insults (again).
For example:
“129 What? : “…Don’t you see that the rest have nothing to do with race/religion but number 4 specifically employs prejudiced stereotypes to derive any ‘irony’ from it…”
Yet again? Race, religion? Not equal issues, definitely not fair to call someone bigoted against Muslims as bad as someone bigoted against white people”
Your reply here is completely unrelated to what we’re talking about. You didn’t reply but picked out my ‘race/religion’ part (which was referring generally to other situations) and went off on a tangent. Do you really consider religious persecution so much less offensive than racial? Where do you draw the line as well considering such a large proportion of the Middle east is Muslim?
Picking out some other points:
“The one you quoted and then I replied to with that, dolt!”
Tell me exactly which one. Give the number of the post.
You’re either talking about post 38 (which you deny) or post 12 as those were the two we were talking about.
Give me numbers.
I’ll repeat: Give me numbers.
Do not give vague statements or insult me.
Which one was poorly articulated and which one are you suggesting I read?
“these Muslims probably haven’t done the slightest thing wrong. For argument’s sake we’ll assume that they haven’t, but how can they turn around and have a snipe at the Pope? Don’t pretend it’s for any other reason than because he’s a Catholic”
1. You’re right, they most likely haven’t. You assume innocence, remember?
2. They can have a swipe at the pope because they’re people expressing their right to protest.
3. It’s more likely that he did or said something that offended them rather than the sole fact of him being Catholic. Whatever it is isn’t important – they are protesting and they have a right to.
“For God’s sake, Jamie isn’t saying that those women are terrorists, KEEP UP! He’s saying that Muslims pointing the finger at anyone except Osama or his ilk is a bit, short-sighted.”
In the same way that all catholics shouldn’t point the finger at anyone but IRA bombers, right? (Note: The preceeding sentence was your logic applied to a different situation. It’s been designed to highlight the flaws in your argument.)
“…Number 4 bases its humour/irony on two ideas, either that:
1) Muslims are unbalanced because they cover themselves, or;
2) All Muslims should be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority.
Do you see how these are prejudiced?”
Read 137, for fuck sake read it and actually make an effort to understand it.”
Respond to the question. Do you see how the two points are both prejudiced? And that again, you’re being vague and not concise in your argument?
It’d be a lot easier if you left out the insults and were more specific when you reply.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 am
“Jamie isn’t saying that those women are terrorists, KEEP UP! He’s saying that Muslims pointing the finger at anyone except Osama or his ilk is a bit, short-sighted.”
Jamie – would you like this as listverse’s new motto?
I think it says proudly ‘religious tolerance’.
(/Sarcasm)
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:08 am
140 What? : You are a drop-kick. My God it would please me to no extent to meet you in the flesh. You’re a good troll though, I’m done. Nice try.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 am
141 What? : Not only a troll, a retard! Amazing that…
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:37 am
what? if This site is so intolerant, just leave. I assure you you will not be missed.
Please. Change the record. Its boring now.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 am
“140 What? : You are a drop-kick. My God it would please me to no extent to meet you in the flesh. You’re a good troll though, I’m done. Nice try.”
“141 What? : Not only a troll, a retard! Amazing that…”
These nicely summarise and validate the points I was making about your debating techniques. You need to be specific and not use insults.
Back on topic:
Are you going to give me the numbers of the relevant comments?
Do you see how the picture is prejudiced now?
cymraegbachgen87 – you aren’t being forced to read these comments.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:57 am
145 What? : Listen, all you’re doing is tactfully ignoring my points. I’ve explained away every weak piece of crap “he shouldn’t be allowed to do this” argument you’ve put in my way. Yet you still manage to think that I’m not rebutting your points. That makes me angry, therefore, you’re a tool, or a very good troll. I’m not bothering with you anymore.
P.S. My arguing technique is 100X whatever you could dream of getting, because I actually *listen* to what the other person is saying, not ignore it when it suits me.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:06 am
If you believe you’ve done such a good job, finish it off:
Give me the numbers of the comments that Jamie ‘poorly articulated’ his ideas in and the number of the comment that you think I should read.
Give me numbers.
Also, please “explain away” my example involving Catholics. According to your logic, all Catholics shouldn’t protest about anything except the IRA bombings. (As you said yourself, your logic is “Muslims pointing the finger at anyone except Osama or his ilk is a bit short-sighted.”)
Explain it. You shouldn’t need to insult me if your arguing technique is really all you claim it is.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Actually, I am being forced to read your drivel, as it keeps coming up in the recent comments feed. I am glad to see that hypocrisy is also one of your talents. As to the IRA, that was YEARS ago – why is it relevent now? The attacks were also NOT a part of a religious ideal, rather a political one, so the parallels being drawn here are irrlevent. The IRA were fighting to have Britain withdraw from Northern Ireland. SO why should catholics even be bothered by their actions – it wasnt as if they blew up plaecs in britain in the name of god.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Epic argument about no. 4. Didn’t have time read everything but I gathered something intrinsically wrong about the arguments on both sides.
Firstly, What? is right. Assuming something morally wrong with (strictly) wearing a burka is culturally flawed. It’s only clothes after all.
However, for What? to then assume Jfraters intentions that the reason for him putting up the sign is due to the women wearing burkas is wrong too. Perhaps, he did. But to assume that is a big leap.
Mark, its quite narrow to assume that wearing something from head to toe is morally flawed. That’s intrinsically culturally subjective. Like I said, its only fashion. Perhaps had you said that they wore this on the basis of blatant following of religion… it would have had more weight.
Jfrater, the picture is only ironic if viewed from a certain perspective. Perhaps that is the humour of it no?
Such as, a political perspective assuming that these women are forced to wear burkas and are unable to protest against this mandate, but are able to protest against the pope. Assumption yes. Absolutely correct, no. Generally correct, perhaps? Humour, yes – albeit politically charged.
I agree that the women have a right to protest about morality – in liberal society, everyone does. And since the West espouses a global view of such things, then so should these women.
I agree that there was no connotation to terrorism.
It seems that this debate spiralled down too much to the point of misunderstanding. Both parties where shooting bullets at something, but were always missing the point.
Anyway, if I missed something. Don’t be so hard on me. It’s 5am and I don’t have time to read 100 comments.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
“The attacks were also NOT a part of a religious ideal, rather a political one, so the parallels being drawn here are irrlevent.”
Do you think attacks carried out by Muslim terrorists are solely religiously motivated, that there’s no political aspects to them at all? Seriously?
“As to the IRA, that was YEARS ago – why is it relevent now?”
I’m using it as an example of the flaws in your logic. If you think the Muslims in this photo shouldn’t protest because other Muslims have carried out attacks, then Catholics can’t protest because some of them have carried out attacks.
“it wasnt as if they blew up plaecs in britain in the name of god.”
Are you sure none of them believed what they were doing was God’s will? None of them said a prayer? Are you sure?
Similarly, are you arguing that all attacks by Muslims are in the name of god?
—–
Archangel, if I could pick up a couple of things:
“to then assume Jfraters intentions that the reason for him putting up the sign is due to the women wearing burkas is wrong too. Perhaps, he did. But to assume that is a big leap.”
and
“I agree that there was no connotation to terrorism.”
Jamie’s own comments:
Comment 12: “they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
Comment 38: “It is not about them wearing full covering – it is about the fact that we hear virtually nothing from Islamic people in protest to their own people about the immoral terrorist attacks and threats – but in the picture they are complaining about the Pope being immoral. Whether they are covered up or not is not relevant.”
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
cymraegbachgen87 (136):
I thought is was just because you have a guy shouting his opinion on a megaphone (freedom of speech) all the while carrying a sign that says freedom of expression can go to hell. If he didnt have freedom of expression then he wouldnt be free to carry a sign or shout his opinions on a megaphone now would he?
How would that insult the prophet? The guy in the picture is just an ass because he´s protesting against soemthing that guarantees him the right to protest in the first place!
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
What? (122)
“Saying that you personally object to their morals is one thing, denying them the right to protest or putting up a picture on a popular website then commenting that the irony derives from their support of terrorists is an entirely different (and inflammatory) thing.”
I am not necessarily denying them the right to protest, I am simply saying that the ireony FOR ME was that they denounced the morals of the Pope while espousing morals and value judegments about females that I find abhorrent.
On a side note, why is it that everytime a negative comment is made about Muslims/Jews/homosexuals/black people, everyone jumps up and screams BIGOT and yet they themselves jump on the bandwagon when the Christianity bashing begins?
Sorry if this starts a flame war, just honestly curious… I dont find that hatred of Catholics here in LA so I´m curious as to why it exists elsewhere… Why do people feel that being one thing is OK, praise-worthy or whatever and the other is instrisically wrong? Anyone?
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“I’m using it as an example of the flaws in your logic.”
You do not know who you are debating anymore do you? I havent been arguing any side other than live and let live. You are attacking me without cause
“If you think the Muslims in this photo shouldn’t protest because other Muslims have carried out attacks, then Catholics can’t protest because some of them have carried out attacks.”
No I do not think that. I have not even argued that!
“Similarly, are you arguing that all attacks by Muslims are in the name of god?”
No. I will say this slowly. I. Have. Not. Been. The. One. Debating. You. I have been constantly saying if you are offended then you are free to leave, but the intention was never to offend. You arse – the ones who have been diligently debating you have been Mark and oouchan.
“Are you sure none of them believed what they were doing was God’s will?”
None of them? That is impossible to verify, but as to it being a POLITICAL extremist group WITH LITTLE TO NO LINKS TO RELIGION I am very certain. I studied it in modern history for two years.
“solely religiously motivated”
Sigh…I never said they were. I alluded that they were PRIMARILY a religious sect. FFS Jihad is a religious term and movement. You are not in possession of the facts here.
You are easily the worst troll I have come across. You cannot keep track of arguments. You cannot keep track of who said what. You cannot even string a congnitive argument together.
151-I am shocked you do not know what I am referring to! This dominated the media for weeks on end. I have posted the general story below of WHY they are saying freedom of expression go to hell. You are correct as to why it is ironic however
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
152 GTT: I dont find that hatred of Catholics here in LA so I´m curious as to why it exists elsewhere
“Hatred” might be too strong a word (in most cases), but perhaps it comes as a response to Catholics’ open condemnation and/or attempted conversion of non-believers? Not meaning to paint everyone with this broad brush here, but the question is, who initiates the dislike of the other?
Why do people feel that being one thing is OK, praise-worthy or whatever and the other is instrisically wrong?
Good question, can be asked of either side.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
cym (153):
hahaha… Sorry, I didnt mean that at all! I do know what you are talking about it´s just that I didnt see the picture as ironic specifically because of the Muhammed cartoons and subsequent controversy…
I saw the irony in the man himself: pretesting against freedom of expression while making use of that freedom!
Sorry again about the laughter… Your word “shocked” actually had me imagining you, and here my mind goes to a guy in blue body paint (sorry!) whose jaw just dropped typing furiously to post that link… It was funny in my head!
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
153 cym: I agree with your post. He is not really addressing any of the questions and completely ignored my post in it’s entirety! We all have provided our reasons and he refuses to see where we are coming from but instead chooses to turn a blind eye. This is inspite of us seeing where he is coming from.
I will no longer respond to him because I agree with you that he is a troll. If he has further questions, he can re-read our posts above.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Maggot (154):
Thanks, I was half ducking under my desk expecting to find some response that included a generous use of expletives and a whole bunch of caps lock… So, thanks.
In any case, back to your post… I think the problem is that the most fundamentalist Christians are the most vocal but that does not mean that every Bible-believer is some sort of close-minded, anti-science, branwashed simpleton. I dont mean to bring that discussion here but I read a post on the Christ-like figures list about how Christians have the mental capabilities comparable to a two-year old… I´ve also been called a “horse with blinders on” just for stating that I am Catholic by someone who knows absolutely nothing about me and with whom I´ve had very little contact. So I ask you, who initiated the dislike there?
Anyway, I´ll let go of my little rant now.
(Oh, and just as a side note, LA is for Latin America, not Los Angeles…
)
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
GTT: Oh, and just as a side note, LA is for Latin America, not Los Angeles
I knew that, from other posts of yours.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Maggot: Yeah, I thought you might but you never know with others!
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“He is not really addressing any of the questions and completely ignored my post in it’s entirety! We all have provided our reasons and he refuses to see where we are coming from but instead chooses to turn a blind eye. This is inspite of us seeing where he is coming from.”
Give me a list of questions to respond to.
I’ve already addressed how picture number 4 is particularly offensive whereas the others don’t specifically rely on religious or racial stereotypes. The others could be someone of any race, religion, gender, etc, while it’s being assumed in number 4 that there’s something inherently wrong with Muslims.
If you didn’t see them as Muslims, great. But there are some out there who are making prejudiced assumptions about the people in the picture. Do you not see how the picture could be inflammatory and shouldn’t have been posted?
If you think I’ve ignored some point relevant to this discussion please draw my attention to it.
—
Can anyone give good reasons that the logic of
“Muslims should protest about Muslim terrorists”
can’t also be applied to
“Catholics should protest about Catholic terrorists”
or
“Catholics should protest about priests molesting children”
?
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
160 What? :
116 – “…No, if it was being held by someone who is known to be very intelligent, Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking for example, it could be taken as merely teasing stupid people by misspelling a word. Much like a written malpropism…”
132 (oouchan’s) – “…1) Predudice against the southern man and America (clearly seen from background) – racial based
Picking on the homeless
2) Clearly picking on Muslims in this one because of the burkas – religion based
3) Picking on christians for bowing down before an idol – religion based
4) Your argument that it’s terrorists we see in the picture.
5) Picking on Mexicans due to the sign “Dez” – racial based
6) Picking on USA – racial based
7) Discrimination of homeless
9) Implied to be a muslim picking on USA – racial based
10) Picking on the obese – I consider this one racial as well…”
138 – “…That’s a fallacy. If Albert Einstein or some other, highly-educated, well-known academic were holding the sign, the implication would not be of a lack of intelligence on their behalf, would it? The Cardinals – up the Redbirds!!! – shirt, and white skin draw on “white Southerner = a bit slow” a racial, cultural and – to an extent – geographical stereotype…”
There are my qualifiers, you are a bloody joke.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Like my mother always said back in her newsgroup days, trolling is as trolling does. Maybe it is trolling to point out offensive images on a site where so many seem to like them and be unable to recognize why they are offensive. But I still think there is value in explaining the problem, in the hope that it might help someone think about things a little differently next time.
No one is saying that Jamie should not be allowed to post such an image. But that doesn’t mean he should have posted it, regardless of his intentions. And his comments show that his intentions were clearly bigoted. The first step to a solution is recognizing the problem, and we’re here to help him do just that. ^____^
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
No, none of those are assuming anything about the people is inherently morally wrong.
Number 4 relies on people assuming Muslims are morally deficient.
The other ones don’t need people to make assumptions about a religion or group of people, they’re self-evident. They would work with anyone else doing the same thing.
Reposting oouchan’s list of the pictures with tacked-on prejudices doesn’t mean anything.
And your point about Albert Einstein etc holding the sign is completely irrelevant. If he were we’d be thinking specifically about one person. My point is that any anonymous person (white, black, Muslim, Christian, male, female) could hold that sign with the same effect.
What about my question:
Can anyone give good reasons that the logic of
“Muslims should protest about Muslim terrorists”
can’t also be applied to
“Catholics should protest about Catholic terrorists”
or
“Catholics should protest about priests molesting children”
?
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
163 What? : “…And your point about Albert Einstein etc holding the sign is completely irrelevant. If he were we’d be thinking specifically about one person. My point is that any anonymous person (white, black, Muslim, Christian, male, female) could hold that sign with the same effect…”
It works just as well with a guy in a lab coat with glasses on.
I’m not going around in circles with you anymore.
IT IS A FUCKING HUMOUR LIST, *LET IT GO*
You are retarded, thinking that the regulars or Jamie are bigoted. Just drop it, you’re really starting to embarrass yourself.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Mark:
Give good reasons that the logic of
“Muslims should protest about Muslim terrorists”
can’t also be applied to
“Catholics should protest about Catholic terrorists”
or
“Catholics should protest about priests molesting children”
?
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
165 What? Cym already did, they don’t need rehashing. Everyone else here got them, doesn’t that tell you something?
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Also, explain to me how Jamie’s comment:
“they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
isn’t bigoted.
Keep in mind that “they” is specifically referring to the people in the picture.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“Cym already did, they don’t need rehashing. Everyone else here got them, doesn’t that tell you something?”
No, Cym didn’t explain it adequately. How about the second one? Shouldn’t all catholics (by your logic) protest against child molestation?
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
168 What? : Since when can we directly compare child molestation with murder?
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
169 Mark: No need to continue with someone who refuses to take of the blinders. We all understand what type of list this is, but he can’t. Must have zero sense of humor.
I have already stated that I will not address him anymore. My points were made clearly but he keeps asking the same things. I suggest we move on to another topic…
soooooo….
Do you have a game this weekend? I had photos from my softball game on my phone and was attempting to upload them to my facebook account, but somehow it erased my photos instead. That ticked me off…so hope to have some new ones when I play in a week.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
170 oouchan : “…My points were made clearly but he keeps asking the same things. I suggest we move on to another topic…”
Reminds me of Stizzy and Cym going at it on the Jesus list
That was fun…
“…Do you have a game this weekend?…”
Nah mate, Queen’s Birthday Long Weekend, I think I’m gonng go home for a change!!! Yay!!! Unfortunately for me it’s the middle of exam block, so Mum’s going to make me study
“…I had photos from my softball game on my phone and was attempting to upload them to my facebook account, but somehow it erased my photos instead. That ticked me off…so hope to have some new ones when I play in a week.”
Sounds good to me, tell me when.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
By the way, do you watch much baseball?
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
172 Mark: Not as much as I would like.
(long story on that one) I usually get updates the next day from co-workers. Why do you ask?
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
“168 What? : Since when can we directly compare child molestation with murder?”
We can compare child molestation with murder as they’re both examples of morally objectionable behaviour.
(Notice that you didn’t actually respond to the question, too. We talked about this earlier, remember?)
Now, back to the question:
Give good reasons that the logic of
“Muslims should protest about Muslim terrorists”
can’t also be applied to
“Catholics should protest about Catholic terrorists”
or
“Catholics should protest about priests molesting children”?
and:
explain to me how Jamie’s comment:
“they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
isn’t bigoted.
Keep in mind that “they” is specifically referring to the people in the picture.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
173 oouchan : “…Not as much as I would like.
(long story on that one) I usually get updates the next day from co-workers…”
I know the feeling – except for the co-worker bit
“…Why do you ask?”
Fantasy Baseball Team – Mark’s Awesomes <- Sweet name eh?
Catcher – Russell Martin
1B – Justin Morneau
2B – Dustin Pedroia
3B – David Wright
SS – Ryan Theriot
OF – Ichiro Suzuki, Vernon Wells and Justin Upton
U – Jorge Cantu
Starting Pitchers – Josh Beckett, Johnny Ceuto, Jon Lester, Jake Peavey and Adam Wainwright
Relief Pitchers – Brad Lidge and Mariano Rivera
Reserve Batters – Stephen Drew (SS), Ryan Ludwick (OF) and Randy Winn (OF)
Reserve Pitchers – Ryan Dempster (SP) and Joakim Soria (RP)
I didn't think I did too badly in the draft. Stephen Drew is playing a bit poorly atm, and I drafted him early, real early
And Randy Winn *facepalm* But Justin Upton in the last round, that was a purdy good catch I think 
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
174 What? : “…We can compare child molestation with murder as they’re both examples of morally objectionable behaviour…”
Either you’re being intentionally thick, or you’re dumber than I penned you down as. Which is worse, genius? Which one is *was* **way** more frowned upon by society. Terrorism, or touching little kiddies? Which one is a *huge* issue in the media at the moment? We’re bombarded by one of the two, if you can’t tell me which one you must be walking around with your eyes closed. That’s the difference.
“…(Notice that you didn’t actually respond to the question, too. We talked about this earlier, remember?)…”
Notice that I don’t have to if the question itself is flawed? Ready? What makes Muslims evil, burkas or Osama Bin Laden? Take your own advice
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Whichever is worse isn’t important.
“What makes Muslims evil, burkas or Osama Bin Laden?”
Neither. Osama bin Laden makes Osama bin Laden evil. He happens to be a Muslim, but does not speak for the majority of them.
Seeing as you have trouble conceptually grasping what I’m getting at, I’ll ask only the first part of the question:
Why is it that
“Muslims should protest about Muslim terrorists”
can’t also be applied to
“Catholics should protest about Catholic terrorists”
And what about the second question:
explain to me how Jamie’s comment:
“they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
isn’t bigoted.
Keep in mind that “they” is specifically referring to the people in the picture.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 pm
177 What? : “…Whichever is worse isn’t important…”
Do you proofread?
“…“What makes Muslims evil, burkas or Osama Bin Laden?”
Neither. Osama bin Laden makes Osama bin Laden evil. He happens to be a Muslim, but does not speak for the majority of them…”
You didn’t answer the question. Holy crap that *is* annoying! I’m getting annoyed just doing it to you.
“…Seeing as you have trouble conceptually grasping what I’m getting at, I’ll ask only the first part of the question:…”
Unlike you, *I* have a solid grip on both reality and logic. I realize the reality of the global situation and my logic is linear. A lot more than we can say about you.
Catholic terrorists? You’ve got your wires crossed mate, the IRA was a *political* movement. You should really listen to cym, he knows what he’s talking about.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Mark, the second this guy realises someone knows what they are talking about he either ignores them, or goes into a cyclical argument.
What?
For the final time. Comparing A-Q and the IRA is stupid as one is RELIGIOUS in motivation, and the other WAS REPEAT WAS political in nature. The only active form of that movement are the radical forms, which are denounced by Irish everywhere – including the political arm of the old IRA, Sinn Fein. Ass.
A recent religious killing of a protestant by a catholic gang was denounced by members of both churches, both communities and political leaders. SO there. Question answered…well. Maybe not for you as I exhuastively answered you quite a while ago and you said I didnt answer satisfactorily
And as for the child molestation. When was the last time you met a catholic who defended a priest who was found guilty of child molestation? I don’t think I have ever met one. If you have, then the circles you live in go somewhat to explain why you are as you are.
Mark, I suggest you leave this troll alone. Hopefully he will just get bored, saunter off and pick his spots for a few hours.
As for me! Home here I come!
June 4th, 2009 at 1:26 am
“the IRA was a *political* movement. You should really listen to cym, he knows what he’s talking about.”
“Comparing A-Q and the IRA is stupid as one is RELIGIOUS in motivation, and the other WAS REPEAT WAS political in nature.”
Yes but when it comes down to it, the Muslim attacks are political as well. Do you understand the reasons behind the attacks? Are you sure they’re not politically motivated as well?
You (mark) are again failing to grasp the situation properly. I’m using an example to highlight the flaws in your logic. You aren’t treating the examples within the appropriate frame but are dismissing them for unrelated reasons.
Maybe I should phrase it this way:
If there were a terrorist group that identified themselves as Catholic, would you expect all Catholics to protest against that and only that? Or would you acknowledge that there are differences between the different groups of Catholics and that the actions of one does not speak for the whole?
““…“What makes Muslims evil, burkas or Osama Bin Laden?”
Neither. Osama bin Laden makes Osama bin Laden evil. He happens to be a Muslim, but does not speak for the majority of them…”
You didn’t answer the question. Holy crap that *is* annoying! I’m getting annoyed just doing it to you.”
I did. See where it says “neither”? I didn’t give one answer as neither one was appropriate.
You also still haven’t responded to:
explain to me how Jamie’s comment:
“they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
isn’t bigoted.
Keep in mind that “they” is specifically referring to the people in the picture.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:29 am
“When was the last time you met a catholic who defended a priest who was found guilty of child molestation?”
Yes but if you saw them protesting against something other than child molestation, you wouldn’t call it ironic as “they support child molestation”, would you?
The point is there is no way of knowing these people (the people in picture number 4’s) attitude towards terrorist attacks.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:37 am
180 What? : “…Yes but when it comes down to it, the Muslim attacks are political as well. Do you understand the reasons behind the attacks? Are you sure they’re not politically motivated as well?…”
Do you know what a Jihad is? Are you implying that I’m the one that doesn’t grasp this? Because I think you just failed, royally.
“…If there were a terrorist group that identified themselves as Catholic, would you expect all Catholics to protest against that and only that? Or would you acknowledge that there are differences between the different groups of Catholics and that the actions of one does not speak for the whole?…”
Yeah, and if there was a terrorist group that identified themselves as Jews… Are you retarded? Which mythical group of Catholic “terrorists” are you on about?
“…I did. See where it says “neither”? I didn’t give one answer as neither one was appropriate…”
Sounds like what I did earlier. I answered the question – just like you – but because the answer wasn’t the corner you wanted me stuck in, you claimed that I hadn’t answered it. Bravo!
“… 180.
You also still haven’t responded to:
explain to me how Jamie’s comment:
“they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
isn’t bigoted.
Keep in mind that “they” is specifically referring to the people in the picture.”
Of course it’s bigoted. That doesn’t make him a bigot, or intollerant, or racist, or discriminatory in any way. Everyone posts stupid comments – you’ve had *more* than your fair share – let it go. I *did* already respond to that however, your comprehension skills weren’t up to the task
June 4th, 2009 at 1:38 am
181 What? : “…Yes but if you saw them protesting against something other than child molestation, you wouldn’t call it ironic as “they support child molestation”, would you?…”
I know I bloody well would. I’d be laughing my head off. But, wait, aren’t I only laughing at No.4 because they’re Muslims?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:52 am
“Do you know what a Jihad is? Are you implying that I’m the one that doesn’t grasp this? Because I think you just failed, royally.”
Do you know the reasons behind the Jihad? Do you think it’s a case of “they’re christian, kill them”?
Please, explain to me what you think a Jihad is the current state of any Jihads.
“Which mythical group of Catholic “terrorists” are you on about?”
The hypothetical one I’m considering for this argument. If there were (were: subjunctive; hypothetical) a catholic terrorist group, would you expect that all catholics should protest against them? Or would you say that they don’t need to as the group doesn’t speak for all catholics?
(Remember: This is a hypothetical situation. Putting aside any “that wouldn’t happen” or “who are they” arguments, how would you react based on the facts I’m giving you?)
“I know I bloody well would. I’d be laughing my head off.”
I really doubt you’d make that connection without someone pointing it out. You saw a burkha, you assumed morally deficient or terrorist. If not you, then at the least Jamie.
“Of course it’s bigoted. That doesn’t make him a bigot, or intollerant, or racist, or discriminatory in any way. Everyone posts stupid comments”
Thank you! So we’re in agreement over something. (Though I disagree that he’s not a bigot personally.)
Can I now extend this to say:
If that was the reason Jamie put the photo up (as his bigoted response was his first response when asked), doesn’t that make the posting of the picture also bigoted?
Would you then agree the picture was in the same vein as “a stupid comment” and Jamie should at the very least make some kind of apology and take the photo down?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Sorry, should read:
“Please, explain to me what you think a Jihad is and the current state of any Jihads.”
June 4th, 2009 at 5:58 am
184 What? : Mate, you are retarded, it’s as simple as that. I’ve got to go to bed, poder your stupidity overnight and if your dumbass, bigoted self can’t figure it out I’ll point it out to you after Physics exam tomorrow.
Good night.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:00 am
You do physics?
What sort?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Just to let you guys know, if you already don’t… Jihad is not just the state of holy war… in fact. The translation from Islamic text isn’t even that. I forgot what it is though.
Jihad has two parts… most people identify Jihad as a war within themselves towards becoming a better Muslim… however, a smaller group identify it as holy war… though the more radical Muslims are called Salafis, and then another group of even more radical muslims within Salafis which i forgot the name of… i think its the Islamists.
By the way, with Jfrater and my comment, and yours What… my internet failed so my long comment didn’t load… this is a much smaller version.
“No, it’s very relevant. If they weren’t covered you wouldn’t have put it up. You assumed that wearing a burka meant not only being Islamic but also a supporter of terrorism.”
““to then assume Jfraters intentions that the reason for him putting up the sign is due to the women wearing burkas is wrong too. Perhaps, he did. But to assume that is a big leap.”
That is all I meant pretty much. No harm intended.
Also, when I said there is no connotation to terrorism, I meant that as a direct interpretation of the picture, not from anyone’s distorted perspective.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
184 What? : “…Do you know the reasons behind the Jihad? Do you think it’s a case of “they’re christian, kill them”?
Please, explain to me what you think a Jihad is the current state of any Jihads…”
People do things for plenty of different reasons. Political ends are not the same as religious reasons. The IRA – just an example – wanted a united Ireland under Irish rule, Al Quaeda want to kill infidels and bring Islam to the world. If that involves politics, so be it, but their main motivation is religion.
“…The hypothetical one I’m considering for this argument. If there were (were: subjunctive; hypothetical) a catholic terrorist group, would you expect that all catholics should protest against them? Or would you say that they don’t need to as the group doesn’t speak for all catholics?…”
No I wouldn’t expect all Catholics to protest against them – faulty syllogism by the way, Muslim compare directly to Chirstian, not Catholic. I would however, find it funny that Catholics were pointing the fingers at other religious groups claiming a lack of morality. Look up the current Pope Benedict, there is one reason that these Muslims are “protesting” against him, because he’s Christian. There are so many other people in the world they could point the finger at, so many Muslims committing what should rightly be called atrocities, so many atheists doing likewise. And they pick a guy who’s only major moral fault lies 60+ years in the past. Look me in the eye and tell me they’re not being bigoted in their own way. He’s *not* morally deficient, but these Muslims are claiming he is.
How is that any different to what I’m doing? I’ll tell you how, *I’m* joking. I’m laughing at the joke instead of seriously calling these people terrorists. You on the other hand can’t comprehend that I could be a well-balanced, tolerant person, and still laugh at a joke *you* personally find offensive. Who’s the real bigot?
“…I really doubt you’d make that connection without someone pointing it out. You saw a burkha, you assumed morally deficient or terrorist. If not you, then at the least Jamie…”
Maybe, but I saw it in jest and laughed. You saw me and thought “what a wanker” in all seriousness. I’ll tell you which position I’d rather be in. I have nothing at all against Muslims, I do listen to the news however, you should try it, it might enlighten you a little.
“…Thank you! So we’re in agreement over something. (Though I disagree that he’s not a bigot personally.)…”
Read some more of the site, dolt. Jamie is an atheist, yet he has allowed free discussion of religion everywhere on this blog. Seriously, look elsewhere on LV and you’ll see just how open-minded we are. I guess that’s why I was so agressive when you assumed we’re bigots, because we’re not, especially not me. It would be hypocritical of me to live my life by stereotypes – in the extreme – just look at the Christ Figures list and a polite and civil discussion I had with a fellow called Stizzy. I’m not a bigot.
“…If that was the reason Jamie put the photo up (as his bigoted response was his first response when asked), doesn’t that make the posting of the picture also bigoted?…”
Nope, it makes it humour. Stereotypes and humour go hand in hand. If you can’t live with stereotypes in humour than I suggest you actively avoid it. Humour relies on assumptions, look at No.2, would that be funny at all if that was “normal” garb where it was shown?
“…Would you then agree the picture was in the same vein as “a stupid comment” and Jamie should at the very least make some kind of apology and take the photo down?”
No, I personally think that you should start apologizing yourself, or step out indiscretely. Unlike you however, I’ll respect your freedom and won’t even suggest you do it. Let alone tacitly demand it.
187. “You do physics?
What sort?”
I’m a high school student in my penultimate year. I just do regular, senior physics. I just finished my exam.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
““…If that was the reason Jamie put the photo up (as his bigoted response was his first response when asked), doesn’t that make the posting of the picture also bigoted?…”
Nope, it makes it humour. Stereotypes and humour go hand in hand. If you can’t live with stereotypes in humour than I suggest you actively avoid it. Humour relies on assumptions, look at No.2, would that be funny at all if that was “normal” garb where it was shown?”
No, we’re finding it funny as we see no point in taking photos for memories when you can’t tell people apart. On the surface we can’t tell them apart, however, it’s very likely they could tell each other apart – height, skin colour (their hands), etc.
The point is that Jamie’s reasons for putting it up were prejudiced. He assumed they had some connection to terrorism. This is disgraceful, especially for such a large site. Can you see how that’s only further adding to the stereotype and why it should now be removed?
“Al Quaeda want to kill infidels and bring Islam to the world.”
Again, that’s Al Qaeda, not Muslims as a whole. I know you realise this but just need to state it again. And do you know that they want Islam spread to the whole world? Or just the US to stop what they were doing/are doing in the middle east?
“Look up the current Pope Benedict, there is one reason that these Muslims are “protesting” against him, because he’s Christian.”
I thought it was because he said something along the lines of “All islam is evil”. That doesn’t really have to do with him being christian. They were protesting what they saw as a prejudiced comment.
“I’ll tell you how, *I’m* joking. I’m laughing at the joke instead of seriously calling these people terrorists”
Yes you might be – but Jamie and others essentially labelled them as terrorists. But still, the humour relies on the assumption that they are morally deficient – you wouldn’t find it funny otherwise. I understand there are assumptions in humour but it’s not “all Muslims are terrorists” but rather “Mcdonalds makes people fat” or “the man is expressing himself but wants that right restricted to others”.
“Read some more of the site, dolt. Jamie is an atheist, yet he has allowed free discussion of religion everywhere on this blog. Seriously, look elsewhere on LV and you’ll see just how open-minded we are.”
He might allow free discussion of religion, but he’s still bigoted in this case. We’ve agreed that his comment was bigoted. If his comment and the picture go together (as they do), he was basing the inclusion of the picture on his prejudices. He says that they support terrorist bombings – he has no basis for saying this unless he assumed all Muslims have some connection to terrorism. This is bigoted.
He said as well “Why is there so much irony in islam?”
Is he basing that on the two photos he’s put up?
This is again bigoted.
He can fix the situation by removing the photo.
“No, I personally think that you should start apologizing yourself, or step out indiscretely.”
I’m not going to. I’d like people to realise that both the picture and Jamie’s comments are prejudiced.
—-
“I’m a high school student in my penultimate year. I just do regular, senior physics. I just finished my exam.”
Any quantum mechanics? It gets much tougher from there.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
What? is doing a great job, but I thought I’d throw another post in. Anyone who doesn’t see the religious aspect of the IRA or the underlying political reasons for Al-Qaeda needs to do more research. Al-Qaeda is not simply a group of evil people that rose up out of nothingness (or out of a bad religion) to challenge the good guys of America. Those who lead them are bad people, but the roots of their support draw from the desperation of the region.
The geopolitical causes run back a long time, at least to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs sided with the British and dealt the crucial blow against the Turks, who had long oppressed them. In return, the best land in Arab territory was parceled up and given to France and Britain. Then oil was discovered in what was left (this is where the U.S. got involved), ensuring that a few would become incredibly wealthy while many of the rest couldn’t even get jobs. Then we have the creation of Israel, another flashpoint and source of desperate people.
This creates an opportunity for a few of those with wealth to pervert the tenets of their religion (the last thing the dispossessed have to hold on to) to justify atrocities. It may be hate that motivates many, but just because they don’t make well-defined demands doesn’t mean that they don’t have political aims. That’s the simplified version; I didn’t even get to the part where the U.S. creates the groups that become Al-Qaeda in order to further its political agenda. Sorry for the long post, I just felt the need to clear up some things.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:27 am
190 What? : “…No, we’re finding it funny as we see no point in taking photos for memories when you can’t tell people apart. On the surface we can’t tell them apart, however, it’s very likely they could tell each other apart – height, skin colour (their hands), etc…”
I don’t see your point? It’s just an extension of what I said. We *assume* something about the people in the picture and we find humour in it. If that assumption could be conceived as racist or “religioust”, so be it. It’s humour, we’re not saying that we think that these people are terrorists, we’re not asking people to dislike them because they’re terrorists. *That* is humour and is something to be taken lightly, something you fail to grasp.
“…The point is that Jamie’s reasons for putting it up were prejudiced. He assumed they had some connection to terrorism. This is disgraceful, especially for such a large site. Can you see how that’s only further adding to the stereotype and why it should now be removed?…”
Why does the reason Jamie put it up change anything? The picture is the same whether I put it up, you put it up, Osama Bin Laden put it up, *or* if Jamie put it up. The picture doesn’t change, peoples’ first reaction to that image won’t change. “Liberal’s” like you will think it’s an outrage, but you’re the reason I find it so easy to see things from a “Conservative” POV. You are disgracefully infuriating.
“…Again, that’s Al Qaeda, not Muslims as a whole. I know you realise this but just need to state it again. And do you know that they want Islam spread to the whole world? Or just the US to stop what they were doing/are doing in the middle east?…”
What’s the one link between *all* of the people in Al Qaeda? What’s the one link between *all* of the people they have targeted? It’s a religious movement, you can spin it anyway you want to push forward your own agenda, but that doesn’t change the facts.
“…I thought it was because he said something along the lines of “All islam is evil”. That doesn’t really have to do with him being christian. They were protesting what they saw as a prejudiced comment…”
Then you are mistaken. The Pope quoted Byzantine text about Muhammad and Islam in an attempt to explain why Holy War is always against God’s will and is, in itself, pointless. He didn’t call Islam evil, I was aloud to use quotes in my English exam using the word “bullshit”, does that mean that they were my words or thoughts? Definitely not. Do they, however, help me get my point across? Yes, yes they do.
“…Yes you might be – but Jamie and others essentially labelled them as terrorists. But still, the humour relies on the assumption that they are morally deficient – you wouldn’t find it funny otherwise. I understand there are assumptions in humour but it’s not “all Muslims are terrorists” but rather “Mcdonalds makes people fat” or “the man is expressing himself but wants that right restricted to others”…”
Yes, and the humour of No.1 relies on the assumption that that man is dumb or mentally deficient. But that doesn’t bother you. As a matter of fact, everytime I bring that up you either ignore it or try and justify it? You’re not as Liberal as you think my friend.
Also, “McDonalds makes people fat”, how is that *not* a negative assumption. I eat fast food – including McDonalds – very regularly and I personally am a healthy size. As a matter of fact, I play 3 sports at high club level, I’m far from unfit. But that’s McDonalds, not a minority your party wants you to stand up for. Muslim’s will earn more votes after all, it’ll make you all seem more compassionate.
You’re not standing up for what you believe in – i.e. Bigotry and intolerance is bad – you’re either trying to make yourself look more tolerant than the average person, which you’ve failed at *miserably*, or you’re following the party line, I can’t pick. Care to enlighten me?
“…He might allow free discussion of religion, but he’s still bigoted in this case. We’ve agreed that his comment was bigoted. If his comment and the picture go together (as they do), he was basing the inclusion of the picture on his prejudices. He says that they support terrorist bombings – he has no basis for saying this unless he assumed all Muslims have some connection to terrorism. This is bigoted…”
Sure, it’s bigoted. But I addressed that above… Are you not capable of making coherent arguments at *one* point in a comment? Do you need to try and impress things multiple times?
“…He can fix the situation by removing the photo…”
There is no “situation”, there’s you, a mentally-deficient, selectively deaf, bigoted [sarcasm] “Liberal” [/sarcasm] giving the human race itself a bad name.
“…“No, I personally think that you should start apologizing yourself, or step out indiscretely.”
I’m not going to. I’d like people to realise that both the picture and Jamie’s comments are prejudiced…”
Well then start arguing for all 10 big fella, because they’re all bigoted and prejudiced. You’d better get started… that’s alot of workinf to make people “realize” that *these* pictures are prejudiced. It’s not just the one, and the real joke here is you trying to make it out that way.
June 7th, 2009 at 5:45 am
192 Mark: Summed it up nicely, there. I agree that if you attack one photo, you need to go after all others. Going after one shows what kind of prejudiced person we are dealing with. Sad, really.
June 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“I agree that if you attack one photo, you need to go after all others.”
No, the others aren’t bigoted. I’ve explained several times that the other photos aren’t relying on stereotypes for their humour. Look at the others – it could be anyone (short of individual, well-known geniuses) doing the same things and it would be possible to find them ironic.
The photo with the Muslim protesters was included because Jfrater assumed that there was some link between these particular Muslims and terrorism. That’s bigoted. The other photos don’t need any negative assumptions about specific groups of people to be overtly funny. And no, Mark, Mcdonalds isn’t a group of people – it’s a corporation and doesn’t have people being born into it or belonging to it.
“We *assume* something about the people in the picture and we find humour in it.”
No, it’s clear that they can’t be seen. You aren’t assuming it’s bad to cover up or that they’re terrorists based on this photo. The other photo has an implicit (by referencing the sign) prejudice that Muslims are somehow morally deficient. Again, this is Jfrater being prejudiced.
“we’re not saying that we think that these people are terrorists”
Yes, Jfrater was. He explicitly said it (or at least that they support it) in comment 12. The reasons for number 4 are either assumption of terrorism or moral deficiency. Neither is obvious.
“Why does the reason Jamie put it up change anything? The picture is the same whether I put it up, you put it up, Osama Bin Laden put it up, *or* if Jamie put it up.”
If he put it in an article entitled “Ten images of reactions to the pope’s speech” or “Photos depicting women in burkhas” then it would be different, wouldn’t it? But no, he chose to find it “ironic” that Muslims should choose to protest against something other than terrorism. The picture stays the same, yes, but the implicit assumptions behind it change.
“What’s the one link between *all* of the people in Al Qaeda? What’s the one link between *all* of the people they have targeted?”
Yes, they’re presumably all Muslim. They’ve targeted the western world but you have to ask WHY they did so. Do you understand WHY they’re carrying out these attacks? What caused them initially to attack people? Was it a political or religious reason?
And if the IRA are so different, why is Northern Ireland divided into protestant and catholic regions? Do you know that some people in the middle east want America out? Isn’t that the same?
You could also argue that “all” the people they have targeted were protestants.
“Then you are mistaken. The Pope quoted Byzantine text about Muhammad and Islam in an attempt to explain why Holy War is always against God’s will and is, in itself, pointless. He didn’t call Islam evil, I was aloud to use quotes in my English exam using the word “bullshit”, does that mean that they were my words or thoughts? Definitely not. Do they, however, help me get my point across? Yes, yes they do.”
This is irrelevant. My point was that they weren’t targeting him because of his christianity but rather his comments. Whatever he said, the protest was clearly against his words, not his religion.
“Yes, and the humour of No.1 relies on the assumption that that man is dumb or mentally deficient.”
There is no assumption! It’s clear that he has done something stupid – “morans”. It’s right there. If anyone else (yes, apart from individual people that are irrelevant in this context) were holding the sign, it would still be ironic. If people choose to find it funnier because he’s southern then that’s up to them – but the initial humour comes from the OBVIOUS mis-spelling. There is no such OBVIOUS irony (that would work equally as well with other people) in the fourth picture. Read the comments – Jamie had to explain picture four from his prejudiced viewpoint. All the other photos speak for themselves.
“Also, “McDonalds makes people fat”, how is that *not* a negative assumption”
In moderation, it doesn’t. But when you have someone going on a “shopping spree” at Mcdonalds, there are bound to be some negative health effects.
And I really don’t think assuming “Mcdonalds makes you fat” is denying people their rights as much as “Muslims are terrorists”.
“But that’s McDonalds, not a minority your party wants you to stand up for. Muslim’s will earn more votes after all, it’ll make you all seem more compassionate”
You realise Mcdonalds is a corporation and that people don’t identify as “Mcdonalds”, right? I have no idea what that second sentence is supposed to mean.
“You’re not standing up for what you believe in – i.e. Bigotry and intolerance is bad – you’re either trying to make yourself look more tolerant than the average person, which you’ve failed at *miserably*, or you’re following the party line, I can’t pick. Care to enlighten me?”
How am I not standing up for what I believe in? The Mcdonalds example is ridiculous and we both know it. And what party line would you be talking about? I think you’re assuming too much about me – you have no basis for which “party” I belong to, if any.
“Sure, it’s bigoted”
Great, so we’re in agreement.
“Do you need to try and impress things multiple times?”
It would seem I would, yes, but think about who I need to impress things to multiple times. At first you didn’t agree that it was even bigoted – now you do. Only after numerous attempts have you seen it.
“There is no “situation””
There is a situation – the blatant bigotry/prejudice on this page. Does that not trouble you?
“selectively deaf”
We could both keep throwing that back and forth at each or we could actually keep trying to get out points across until one of us has some kind of breakthrough. Where you see “selectively deaf” I see “not relevant to the discussion”. It’s the same thing the other way.
“Well then start arguing for all 10 big fella, because they’re all bigoted and prejudiced. You’d better get started… that’s alot of workinf to make people “realize” that *these* pictures are prejudiced. It’s not just the one, and the real joke here is you trying to make it out that way.”
I’ve answered this above. The other are obvious ironies – number 4 relies on Jfrater’s comment # 12. (Overtly bigoted.)
“there’s you, a mentally-deficient, selectively deaf, bigoted [sarcasm] “Liberal” [/sarcasm] giving the human race itself a bad name.”
Yet again, I need to tell you to stop being so petty. I realise you’re angry for some reason but control your temper. There’s no need for it and it doesn’t offend me.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Wow. Possibly the longest rant on LV.
I have no idea why YOU sir, are getting so angry about this.
Also, if something doesn’t offend you, why ask for someone to stop it? Fail.
It is your OPINION that particular picture is bigoted. Fine. You are entitled to that. But dont piss and moan and stamp your feet like a three year old just because the entire world doesn’t agree with you.
As I have said REPEATEDLY (but you obviously don’t read) if this offends you so much, you are free to leave at any time. I would use this freedom, because you are now coming over as petty, stupid, arrogant, preaching and foolish.
“There is a situation – the blatant bigotry/prejudice on this page. Does that not trouble you?”
Well obviously not. You have asked this over and over and OVER. It doesnt bother us. Try and get that through your head. We do not see it your way, and never will. Stop this pointless debate, change the record, and enjoy the site. If you cant then PISS OFF.
“And if the IRA are so different, why is Northern Ireland divided into protestant and catholic regions?”
*sigh*
That comment proves you do not know a single THING about the problems in Northern Ireland. If you continue trying to compare these incomparable issues, I will be forced to pwn you, making you look even more ignorant than you appear at the moment. Suffice to say, the IRA were protesting and fighting against British Rule of N.I. They wanted a unified Ireland with nothing to do with Britain. The religious divisions throughout Ireland are a hang up from the dissolution of the Catholic church in Britain, but Ireland stayed Catholic. That is not, repeat is NOT the reason for the decades of violence. Stay where you are better aquainted with the facts.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:20 am
“He can fix the situation by removing the photo.”
Freedom of expression comes with freedom to be offended. If we followed your rules, freedom of expression would die.
That is democracy.
Deal with it.
Ass.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
“Suffice to say, the IRA were protesting and fighting against British Rule of N.I. They wanted a unified Ireland with nothing to do with Britain. The religious divisions throughout Ireland are a hang up from the dissolution of the Catholic church in Britain, but Ireland stayed Catholic. That is not, repeat is NOT the reason for the decades of violence. Stay where you are better aquainted with the facts.”
Okay, so by your definition Al Qaeda is not religious as they want America out of the middle east? Do you know whether Al Qaeda wants the western world converted or just out of their affairs? (Think carefully about this – look into it.)
So then fact they’re different religions is due to geographical differences, no?
Let me pose a different scenario to you – the KKK. Overtly a racist, prejudiced group that singles out Christianity as their religion. They attack other religions. Should christians not then constantly protest against them rather than other issues, lest it seem ‘ironic’?
And before you answer “They’ve disbanded” or “that was decades ago”, let’s assume for a moment they were still active.
If there were a picture of KKK people protesting then yes, something is ironic because of the abhorrent nature of their acts (keeping in mind they’d be willingly identifying with the KKK). But if there were a picture of a christian protesting to which jfrater said “they’re protesting while they support the lynching of black people”, with an implied connection to the KKK, how would you react?
“As I have said REPEATEDLY (but you obviously don’t read) if this offends you so much, you are free to leave at any time.”
I’ve replied to this before. And as much as I’m free to leave, I’m free to stay and express my opinion. THAT is freedom of speech.
“Freedom of expression comes with freedom to be offended. If we followed your rules, freedom of expression would die.
That is democracy.
Deal with it.”
I think you’re taking the situation to an extreme. In this one case there’s overt prejudice and inflammatory comments on a popular website. Jfrater of course has the right to publish it – as he has – but doesn’t the stereotype it contributes to outweigh his reasons for putting it up?
Would you then also agree that members of hate groups have freedom of expression to yell out hate speech etc?
“We do not see it your way, and never will.”
‘Never’? Quite strong words. I’m going to keep going regardless.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:58 am
“Would you then also agree that members of hate groups have freedom of expression to yell out hate speech etc?”
Wow.
That is a stupid question.
It is a stupid question because they DO have that freedom of expression – happens here in Britain all the time.
“But doesn’t the stereotype it contributes to outweigh his reasons for putting it up?”
No.
“I think you’re taking the situation to an extreme.”
As are you.
“I’m going to keep going regardless”
Then you have an enviable amount of free time on your hands. Good luck.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:04 am
Google BNP (British National Party), a Fascist political party in Britain.
They are a hate group who have actually just won a seat in the European Parliament.
Your tame argument pales in comparison to reality
June 9th, 2009 at 4:24 am
“They are a hate group who have actually just won a seat in the European Parliament.”
Okay, fair point. But that doesn’t mean I can’t disagree and try to challenge prejudiced/inflammatory things when I see them.
The question is whether Jfrater should keep the photo up considering its bigoted nature. If he’s socially conscious and religiously tolerant I’d say remove it.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:36 am
It is only your opinion that it is bigotted. You stand in the minority. In democratic countries, the minority often have to suffer to please the majority.
Unless the majority of this site campaign against it, there is no perceived reason to remove it. Freedom of expression cannot be suspended to please the minority, only the majority.
That is just as wrong as the former, but logically acceptable.
Remember, democracy is the WORST form of government…apart from all the other forms.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:39 am
191
“to challenge the good guys of America”
That made me laugh!
June 9th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
194 What? : You are a moron. But I can understand where you’re coming from. HOWEVER, you’re still a moron. You can’t ignore No.1, that’s not ironic if a nerd or a “scientist” is holding the sign. It’s probably not ironic even with the Southerner holding it, but it is funny. It’s funny *because* we look at him, his beer gut, his Cardinals shirt and his mullet and go “look at the stupid tool”. Unconciously, our mind has equated that with a stupid white southerner. Tell me truthfully that you don’t think that’s a negative stereotype and I’ll tell you who’s a bigot.
Also, No.6, not funny unless you assume that the guy’s either homeless, unemployed, or both. Both are negative stereotypes, tell me truthfully what the first thing that comes to mind when you think homeless or unemployed. I can tell you one thing for sure, it’s not a perfectly fair and unbiased image of a completely equal human being.
So go away and ponder me this :
Which one of us is actually bigoted?
June 9th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
cym, what made me laugh was further up (162) she implied that Jamie is bigoted. Then she suggests that Islam is a bad religion and that America are “the good guys.”
Wow…
June 10th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“cym, what made me laugh was further up (162) she implied that Jamie is bigoted. Then she suggests that Islam is a bad religion and that America are “the good guys.””
Are you referring to her comment
“Al-Qaeda is not simply a group of evil people that rose up out of nothingness (or out of a bad religion) to challenge the good guys of America.” ?
As she’s rather obviously not meaning that seriously. Her intention is clearly to mock the idea of America being “good” and Al Qaeda “evil”. If you read her sentence again you can see “is not simply…” at the start of it. That should give you some indication she doesn’t agree with it but is suggesting a ridiculous viewpoint.
Even if she did agree with it, it wouldn’t make her statement of Jamie being bigoted any less true. She’d be hypocritical but not necessarily wrong.
—
Back to other things:
“You can’t ignore No.1, that’s not ironic if a nerd or a “scientist” is holding the sign.”
Yes but any other gender, race, religion etc would be equally as valid in the same situation. I’ve explained this numerous times.
I’ll admit you could also think something about him being stupid but the joke doesn’t necessitate it. Personally I have little idea about the south/north in America so didn’t presume anything regarding his geographic location but rather that he should speak english well.
Number 6 could be someone having a break rather than homeless. Either way, if you assume homeless or a break, they are not partaking in “labor”. It’s nothing to do with a group of people as much as this one person. You don’t have to assume anything about the person – it’s obvious what’s happening.
If you meant number 7, it’s an obvious contradiction – the man IS begging. It’s not a presumption about homeless people – it’s an obvious statement about this specific man.
The problem with 4 is that it specifically and necessarily requires a presumption of problems with muslims to explain its inclusion on an “ironic” page.
“his beer gut, his Cardinals shirt and his mullet and go “look at the stupid tool”. Unconciously, our mind has equated that with a stupid white southerner”
But it’s CLEAR that he IS stupid, too. Maybe people think southerners are stupid, but it’s clear from context here that this specific man is dumb. Whether he’s from the south or not is irrelevant.
I agree that there is a negative stereotype associated with southerners, but that doesn’t HAVE to come into play here.
The stereotype of muslims is being actively encouraged and specifically brought to our attention by number 4 and Jamie’s comments.
“Which one of us is actually bigoted?”
I don’t think it’s me. I’m trying to get people to see how that photo is bigoted towards Muslims. I cannot apply my reasoning for the bigotry in that photo to other photos for reasons I’ve explained before. The other photos are clear in their irony.
How about my question:
If there were a picture of KKK people protesting then something is ironic because of the abhorrent nature of their acts (keeping in mind they’d be willingly identifying with the KKK). But if there were a picture of a christian protesting to which jfrater said “they’re protesting while they support the lynching of black people”, with an implied connection to the KKK, how would you react?
He’d then be associating all christians with the KKK. I don’t think most people would understand/agree with the connection. But why is it okay to do that for Muslims?
June 10th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
205 What? : “…I agree that there is a negative stereotype associated with southerners, but that doesn’t HAVE to come into play here…”
Nor does any negative stereotype to do with Muslims. Jamie’s comments may not have been well-thought-out but that does *not* I repeat *not* make what I am saying now invalid. Or else why the hell do we bother talking about global warming? I mean, that guy that made “The Great Global Warming Swindle” made some dodgy claims, used some poor evidence. Doesn’t his stupidity therefore mean that global warming *must* be real?
You’re clinging on to one, possibly two of Jamie’s comments as though they’re scripture. Take a step back and look at this again. My first assumption – like a lot of others’ – was that the burka had something to do with it. Nothing about Muslims on the whole, so the “negative” depiction of Muslims doesn’t even HAVE to come into this.
“…Number 6 could be someone having a break rather than homeless. Either way, if you assume homeless or a break, they are not partaking in “labor”. It’s nothing to do with a group of people as much as this one person. You don’t have to assume anything about the person – it’s obvious what’s happening…”
But having a break is an integral part of labour and working. Without it, society couldn’t function. Basic biology, food = energy, energy is required to work. Not to mention it *could* be a Sunday and that man *could* be religious so instead, Jamie *could* be picking on religion!!! OMG!!! I can make up hypotheticals and “what ifs” as well as anyone here on LV, don’t try me. Your point is fallacious, of course we *could* assume many things. But the first thing most people see, is a homeless man or a bludger.
Heck, let’s take your method and apply it to my argument. Those people wearing the burkas could really just be members of another religion trying to poke fun at both Islam and Christianity!!! Holy craps!!! That is a fun way to argue – if specious – I should start using that. Well, maybe not, there’s always that risk of me making a real dick of myself, don’t you think?
“…I don’t think it’s me. I’m trying to get people to see how that photo is bigoted towards Muslims. I cannot apply my reasoning for the bigotry in that photo to other photos for reasons I’ve explained before. The other photos are clear in their irony…”
No, you’ve come here, seen a photo depicting “Muslims” in “negative” fashion and bam! Suddenly the person who posted it *must* be bigoted, the people who defend that person, well they’re obviously bigots too, I mean, they must be, they can’t not be, can they?
“…If there were a picture of KKK people protesting then something is ironic because of the abhorrent nature of their acts (keeping in mind they’d be willingly identifying with the KKK). But if there were a picture of a christian protesting to which jfrater said “they’re protesting while they support the lynching of black people”, with an implied connection to the KKK, how would you react?
He’d then be associating all christians with the KKK. I don’t think most people would understand/agree with the connection. But why is it okay to do that for Muslims?…”
Ahh, you see, I’m not here to debate hypotheticals. They’re for people I enjoy conversing with. But are you seriously telling me that Christian + racism = Islam + religious attacks? Because that seems rather silly. I’m not here to debate with you whether or not these women are allowed to protest, I’m all for them to be allowed to. As a matter of fact, I’d prefer them to. Everything needs to be questioned, just like your stupid, “Liberally” motivated idea that Muslims are more persecuted, so we’ll get more brownie points by defending them.
You’re a joke, if you’re going to stand up against bigotry, discrimination and intollerance. At least do it fairly, justly and equally.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
“My first assumption – like a lot of others’ – was that the burka had something to do with it.”
What was the other part of that “something”?
Why did you think the burkha had something to do with it? Are you assuming people wearing burkhas implies moral deficiency?
“Nor does any negative stereotype to do with Muslims.”
Yes, it does. Give me an example of that photo being ironic without it assuming something is wrong with muslims/people in burkhas (who are typically muslim).
“But the first thing most people see, is a homeless man or a bludger.”
Yes, and that person isn’t partaking in labour, are they? It could be many things, all of which relate to working/sleeping contradictions rather than Muslim/Terrorist associations.
“Those people wearing the burkas could really just be members of another religion trying to poke fun at both Islam and Christianity!!!”
So why is it on an ‘irony’ list? Jfrater’s intentions for including it were because he saw a link between muslims and terrorists. He openly said that and encouraged others to think that way. How is it ironic without the negative assumptions?
“No, you’ve come here, seen a photo depicting “Muslims” in “negative” fashion and bam! Suddenly the person who posted it *must* be bigoted, the people who defend that person, well they’re obviously bigots too, I mean, they must be, they can’t not be, can they?”
No, I came here, wondered what the photo was about, saw jfrater’s comments and asked him to explain himself. He couldn’t sufficiently so now I’m furthering the point in the hopes that others can see his bigotry and the photo gets removed.
People defending aren’t necessarily bigots but when *you* say things like:
“He’s saying that Muslims pointing the finger at anyone except Osama or his ilk is a bit, short-sighted.”
(So Catholics should protest only against Catholic matters?)
or
“Muslims *are* blowing people up” (No, terrorists are who happen to be Muslim, though their motivations are political.)
or
“Hmm… Let’s see… Irish Catholic… I’m sure there was another type that has never bombed anyone… Stupid me I guess… No, wait… Roman? Roman Catholic? Yes, no? You’re a fucking moron?”
(So Muslims don’t also have different denominations?)
or
“Fair enough, these Muslims probably haven’t done the slightest thing wrong. For argument’s sake we’ll assume that they haven’t, but how can they turn around and have a snipe at the Pope? … They could be holding a sign condeming Osama, but are they? No! Why would we care about him? He’s killing infidels!”
(You said yourself they haven’t done anything wrong – why should they have to protest against Osama? Do you know if they consider themselves connected to him, or are you assuming he’s acting on their behalf because they’re muslim and you can’t grasp the concept of them having different denominations/sects like christianity?)
“But are you seriously telling me that Christian + racism = Islam + religious attacks?”
I don’t know how to answer that. Why are there the christian/islam qualifiers? It would be better to say “are you telling me lynching = terrorist attacks?” And my answer would be no, but that both are abhorrent and would be grounds for protest, so why aren’t Christians protesting against the KKK? Or, why when the KKK was more active weren’t christians ONLY protesting against the KKK and nothing else, by your logic?
“Ahh, you see, I’m not here to debate hypotheticals.”
That’s convenient. It completely avoids a point I’m interested in pursuing that would seem to somewhat deflate your argument. Give it a shot, answer it. If you’re so good at debating, rebut my point. (Does not include swearing, saying “you’re a joke” ad nauseum, etc)
“Everything needs to be questioned, just like your stupid, “Liberally” motivated idea that Muslims are more persecuted, so we’ll get more brownie points by defending them.”
So who did people (jfrater and others) connect with terrorists/being morally lacking in this thread? You wouldn’t be able to do the same for Christians, Jewish people, etc.
“You’re a joke, if you’re going to stand up against bigotry, discrimination and intollerance. At least do it fairly, justly and equally.”
I would, but there isn’t any other explicit and equal type of discrimination going on here. Please do not bring up the southern guy again. I have explained that it’s not necessary for someone to assume southerner = stupid for them to find it ironic.
He’s telling people that they should “get brains” but he can’t spell. Simple. Obvious. Similarly with the other photos, we have something clear that’s an irony.
Photo four: They’re protesting. Obvious irony: ?
Implied irony: Muslims are terrorists/are well enough associated that they should protest against it.
Why is there this bigoted assumption on a site of “religious tolerance”?
June 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
What? (207):
“…encouraged others to think that way…” Uhm, no. Now you´re putting words in someone else´s mouth. He never encouraged, just said that is why HE found picture ironic. Jaime is not actively campaigning against Muslims as you would have us believe.
And just as a side note, I´m still waiting for a response to my post 152. I´m not making any assumptions on their terrorist status or lack thereof. These particular women, by the sole image of them in burkas, adhere to morals and value judgements about women that I find reprehensable. It is therefore IRONIC that they should question the values of someone like the Pope.It is thus, an image of irony and deserves a place on this list.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
@GTT (208): You summed that up nicely. I agree with you on that.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
@oouchan (209):
Thanks! I have to say I was a little afraid people were going to call me bigoted just because I dont appreciate these particular cultural differences. I lived in Venezuela most of my childhood, then the US, then Italy and now I´m in Peru. I really do understand cultural diffrences. That said, I do not think we should excuse injustice as a “cultural difference”. I think the list on abuses suffered by women in the world proves my point (an oldie but a goodie!).
Here´s hoping that (s?)he´ll respond this time!
June 15th, 2009 at 3:52 am
“These particular women, by the sole image of them in burkas, adhere to morals and value judgements about women that I find reprehensable. It is therefore IRONIC that they should question the values of someone like the Pope.”
Hmmm I can’t say I agree. I’m not saying all Muslim women are choosing to wear burkhas but we can’t assume it’s necessarily a bad thing or that they’re being forced into it. Why do you find it reprehensible if they choose to wear burkhas?
Responding to your 152:
“On a side note, why is it that everytime a negative comment is made about Muslims/Jews/homosexuals/black people, everyone jumps up and screams BIGOT and yet they themselves jump on the bandwagon when the Christianity bashing begins?
Sorry if this starts a flame war, just honestly curious… I dont find that hatred of Catholics here in LA so I´m curious as to why it exists elsewhere… Why do people feel that being one thing is OK, praise-worthy or whatever and the other is instrisically wrong? Anyone?”
Christians don’t really need to be represented by others as much because they are constantly seen and portrayed not only in real life but in the media, movies, etc, in a positive way. As you’ve seen here people think it’s okay to get away with attacking Muslims. Why? Why didn’t Jfrater put a photo up of KKK members protesting? It’s much more relevant to Americans, who I’m guessing take up a large portion of this site.
Movies and the media both demonize Muslims but people can’t seem to separate that from reality. Christians, on the other hand, are thoroughly well-represented in western society. It’d be the same thing in other countries – the majority is rarely spoken for because it’s so well represented otherwise.
Saying “all christians are evil” in America isn’t going to influence people and degrade the rights of people as much as saying “Muslism/Jews/Blacks are evil” solely because people don’t have as much basis for identification with them.
I hope that answers your questions.
Also:
“He never encouraged, just said that is why HE found picture ironic.”
I have to say this his opinion would tend to carry a lot of weight on this site. If jfrater endorses something, I’d more listverse users to agree than people who don’t frequent the site.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:51 am
@What? (211):
“Why do you find it reprehensible if they choose to wear burkhas?”
For the simple fact of what it means to women. It means they need to cover up so they wont “tempt” males, it means that to that society one woman is pretty much the same as another, it means women are second class citizens. A lot of women are FORCED to wear them which is just another form of oppression. And while I know that some women choose to wear them, I have to ask what they are saying about the role of women in society. Enough reasons?
Re the whole Christianity thing: I´ve seen more than my share of arguments revolve around the fact that we´re delusional, ignorant and fundamentally opposed to all rationality and truth because we belive in a “mystical sky fairy”. And you dont usually see non-Christians stand up to this while you do see, for example, straight people stand up against homophobia. Why is it not OK to call a homosexual a queer or fag but it it is considered correct debating skills to call a Christian ignorant and brainwashed? (And before someone jumps on me, NO,I do NOT think it´s OK to call a gay person queer or fag). It´s just a hypothetical question.
“It’s much more relevant to Americans, who I’m guessing take up a large portion of this site.”
Yes, they might. But again, this site is not catering solely to American interests, it has a pretty wide and diverse fan base. As a WORLDWIDE phenomenon, the KK just isnt that important.
“I have to say this his opinion would tend to carry a lot of weight on this site. ”
Meh, yes, he´s the owner of this site but I´ve never seen his opinion carry an inordinate amount of weight. Stick around and you´ll see for yourself.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“For the simple fact of what it means to women. It means they need to cover up so they wont “tempt” males, it means that to that society one woman is pretty much the same as another, it means women are second class citizens. A lot of women are FORCED to wear them which is just another form of oppression. And while I know that some women choose to wear them, I have to ask what they are saying about the role of women in society.”
I see where you’re coming from but you could argue almost the same thing for women wearing revealing clothes in our society – that they’re being forced to (by society), that they’re second class as they need to do this to ‘fit in’, that it affects the rest of women etc. Look at Christina Aguilera for example – would you agree the way she dresses is influencing women, particularly young girls?
Also, despite the ’second class’ connotations, I don’t think it’s possible to argue that these particularly women have no ‘moral compass’ solely on the basis of them wearing a burkha. Who knows what their specific moral ideology is?
The fact is that Jfrater didn’t put the photo up because of the burkhas – he explicitly stated that early on. If people happen to be finding it ironic for another reason, that’s great, but the initial bigotry remains.
“And you dont usually see non-Christians stand up to this while you do see, for example, straight people stand up against homophobia. Why is it not OK to call a homosexual a queer or fag but it it is considered correct debating skills to call a Christian ignorant and brainwashed?”
Because being homosexual has little if anything to do with one’s point of view. Being christian on the other hand will influence opinions in lots of areas. Also, calling someone a fag does nothing to advance an argument – calling a christian brainwashed diminishes their argument.
I’m not agreeing that it is okay to call christians brainwashed etc (just saying why people would) but it again comes back to homosexuals not being as represented in society. Christians (especially in America) are extremely common to the point of assuming most audiences you come across will be largely comprised of christians.
Attacking christians isn’t as dangerous because christians are generally able to band together – not true for other groups.
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
@What? (213):
“…calling a christian brainwashed diminishes their argument…”
Are you kidding me?How would that diminish any argument? It´s ad hom at its best, trying to “diminish” an argument by attacking the person. Give me a break.
And back to the original argument:
“Also, despite the ’second class’ connotations, I don’t think it’s possible to argue that these particularly women have no ‘moral compass’ solely on the basis of them wearing a burkha. Who knows what their specific moral ideology is?”
No, but it´s still ironic in the same way the other pictures are. For example, the guy lying on the grass in front of Department of Labor sign could well be on his lunch break, taking a nap after a three day all day, all night work session. His specific work ethic could be excellent, he could very well be a workaholic for all we know. It doesnt make a difference to the perceived irony of the picture. That´s the point.
And just as a side note, anyone who takes freaking Christina Aguilera as a role model has serious mental deficencies… Just saying.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
@GTT (212): Re the whole Christianity thing: I´ve seen more than my share of arguments revolve around the fact that we´re delusional, ignorant and fundamentally opposed to all rationality and truth because we belive in a “mystical sky fairy”. And you dont usually see non-Christians stand up to this while you do see, for example, straight people stand up against homophobia.
I think you’re making an apples-to-oranges comparison GTT. I think the difference in the two scenarios is that gays (or racial minorities, or women, as other examples) aren’t trying to be accepted as anything more than “equal”, or that it be a non-factor, whereas the so-called Christian movement stems from a self-perceived, self-proclaimed position of moral superiority. Again, as I replied to you earlier about this, this is a generalized statement and not meant to label everyone in a given group. Anyway, this is what tends to get people’s hackles up. That position is a belief system that can be debated (ad homs aside) by people that don’t happen to follow those doctrines or are perhaps offended by the subtle condescension. Whereas those other groups are what they are. They can’t change their stripes (though homophobes like to argue otherwise), so any type of discrimination against them would be more likely to find sympathizers outside of their groups. I am not a member of any of those three example groups, but I abhor discrimination (as likely most everyone does), so I would definitely stand up against it and defend those groups if I feel their rights are being violated. I am not Christian either, but I would likewise oppose discrimination against them. Difference being, I don’t equate debating against dogmatic beliefs as being discriminatory. I do agree with you that using terms like “delusional, ignorant and fundamentally opposed to all rationality” might not be correct debating protocol and I’m probably guilty of using those type of terms myself and I’m not saying it’s ok, but the usage is driven more by a sense of frustration, rather than being a form of “hate”, as seems to be the motivation behind those that oppose the other groups.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
@Maggot (215):
I do understand where you are coming from. It just gets on my nerves when you have UNPROVOKED comments bashing religion on lists and arguments that have the barest relevance. I was referring to those who assume MOST people of faith are close-minded, backwards, condescending or have some sort of moral superiority complex.
Now, would you agree that there is also a slight sense of an intellectual superiority complex on the part of some atheists? some would seem to believe that they are “smarter” because they “arent fooled into believing in a ridiculous sky fairy.” Believe me, the condescension grates both ways…
Now, I have to say that in my humble opinion, the most vocal Christians are Americans. The evolution vs creationism debate is something you dont really hear outside the US (at least not whether to teach creationism in school).
I understand frustration but I guess it just surprises me when I come across such instant (and in some cases unwarranted) hostility.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Ha! This (for the most part) is a great list!
Now, on to the current post by oouchan, Mark, and What. First off,…well I don’t really know what to do first. Although I’ve noticed some people(such as What and Mark. Yea, you Mark. #1 is not what you think) claiming the pictures are bigoted and what-not. So here’s my shot at explaining what the pics ACTUALLY mean(or at least what they look like).
#1=It’s not ironic cuz he’s a redneck, it’s cuz he’s holding a sign that calls people “morans” while he’s standing in the middle of a ROAD! Makes sense now, doesn’t
#2=I don’t know. Probably is racist.
#3=They’re bowing when they’re told not to bow. Also, a head makes it look like it says “do murder, do it”. Not ironic but funny.
#4=Not gettin’ into this one. That’s it.
#5=oouchan, how’s this prejudiced against Mexicans?!?! The irony is, obviously, in the fact that a car crashed into a safe driving shcol! It has got nothing to do with the name of the place.
#6=Someone slacking off at a department of LABOR. Labor as in work?
#7=He has a sign saying “Don’t make me beg” while begging.
#8=A house repair sign on piece of crap, broken down building.
#9=They’re using the freedom of speach while protesting it. Like protesting animal cruelty while slaughtering stray dogs with an axe.
#10=A billboard for prevention of obesity, right over a McDonalds billboard, with quite possibly the same model. Nuff’ said.
Oh, and hi!
October 29th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Funny stuff.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Just so you know, they are not bowing down and worshipping the image of the 10 commandments(which I’ve never even heard of anyone doing). They are bowing down and praying to God; the stones being their has nothing to do with why they’re bowing, they’re just praying.
March 1st, 2010 at 1:58 pm
the 1st one is the funniest