StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Well I don't see this ending good. I'm all for free speech but this is a like throwing gasoline on a fire. kind of inciting a riot illegal

An idiot has made a video game depicting the prophet Muhammad and released it on the internet. The game is called Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 and screenshots posted online show a naked bearded man wearing a turban engaging in various sex acts with a range of partners, including other men and assorted animals.

In the words of its creator, someone known as gizmo01942, " Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 puts you in the shoes of one of history's most notable and controversial religious figures. Unleash your inner sex demon as you enjoy a wide variety of carnal acts with an assortment of creatures, from goats to pigs to gangs of men."

If you're asking why a game that takes a figure revered by an estimated 1.6 billion people worldwide, and then combines it with scat play and bestiality, was released so soon after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, well the game opens with a "Je Suis Charlie" graphic. That attack, in which 12 people were killed, was carried out in response to cartoon representations of the revered religious figure.

In the aftermath, there was much shouting about the importance of free speech. Some conservative commentators dubbed this hypocrisy, saying if Hebdo had the right to print their controversial cartoons without fear of reprisals, then the right to be a pointlessly provocative asshole should also be upheld. This could either be part of that, or an insanely labour-intensive attempt at being murdered in order to win a Darwin Award.

While Muhammad has appeared in a few cartoons over the years, he's been a rarer sight in video game pixels. But there are some examples. 2009's Faith Fighter allowed players to choose from a small pantheon of top-shelf deities, including Jesus, Buddha and Ganesh. Players using Muhammad were also given the option of blurring out his face.

2008's Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide called on its players to kill Muslims in droves before facing off against Muhammad as a boss character in the final level. A crudely conceived and executed top-down shooter, it was defended at the time as a work of satire.

So is satire also the reason Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 exists? In a statement on internet forum Encyclopaedia Dramatica, gizmo01942 takes responsibility for the game, if not for any of offence it may cause. "It should be obvious," the statement reads, "but I want to make it clear this is not intended as a serious attack on anyone's faith nor is it meant as a serious critique of any real-life historical figures."

The post goes on to claim that the game is a statement of "free speech absolutism" and that the maker refuses to be part of the "cycle of hate". As for the circle of jerk, well that seems sadly unavoidable at this point.

link

I would have gotten it if you criticise the Prophet for having sex with an under age kid, because he did. But what the fuck is with this sex with animals bit? This isn't criticism with a point, its just insulting to see if you can get a rise out of people.

I can see the point of making this just to demonstrate the fact that people can't say shit about Muhammad while being free to say or do whatever to other religious icons. However I think everyone already knows that already and I don't see a complimentary "Jesus Sex Simulator" where Jesus bangs prostitutes, apostles, and maybe a Mexican named Jesus.

Whatever the point of this is or author intent I'm not going to call it stupid or the author an "idiot" as the clearly unbiased article did. Yeah it might piss off people but thats part of free speech.

Free speech especially becomes important after shit, horrifying and fucked up shit, like the Charlie Hebbo massacre that has an effect on free speech both abroad in surrender monkey land and here in Murica, the place that actually matters. There is quite often a push back against freedom of speech, freedom of press, when attacks occur on those rights.

Thats when those rights should be protected harder. We should not let our rights be dictated by terrorists and tragedy, trade away our rights for a small amount of fleeting comfort.

This game may not be some high concept AAA nose hair rendering game (though it is technically indie so game critics have to love it) but its purpose may not be a noble one but I shan't go against its existence just because its continuing existence is pretty much a fuck you to those who would restrict our rights, both by fear and in the name of "safety".

Now if it was a blatant attack on Muslims I might feel differently but just like pictures of Jesus screwing Buddha and a couple other deities (which does exist and was posted I think in the comic thread in N&P) aren't an attack of Jesus freaks and Buddha lovers, this admittedly low brow and insulting game I don't think really is.

mr friendly guy wrote:I would have gotten it if you criticise the Prophet for having sex with an under age kid, because he did. But what the fuck is with this sex with animals bit? This isn't criticism with a point, its just insulting to see if you can get a rise out of people.

It might be a response to Charlie Hebbo. One trying to send a message of: You attacked Charlie Hebbo because you were insulted. You thought that would lessen the insults. You were wrong. The insults will only come stronger now.

Maybe.

You know what? If the attention-seeking edgelord who this was a good idea gets kneecapped or has their house burned down, I will have exactly fuck-all sympathy. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons were in decidedly questionable taste already, but this is crossing the fucking line. Freedom of speech should not include freedom from the consequences of going out of your way to be a dick.

Freedom of speech should not include freedom from the consequences of going out of your way to be a dick.

Is it justifiable to murder someone for being a dick?

Not trying to defend this guy, he's clearly an asshole. But is there any situation where being an asshole can justify the murder of you, your family, and anybody who just happens to be in the way?

In my eyes, there is no situation in which violence is a justifiable response to speech. If he were assaulted for this, the responsibility lies 100% on the person who chose to resort to violence. This is 2015, if you're angry at someone, use your words, not your fists.

People have done worse with sacred Christian iconography, and nobody got murdered. Islamic extremists are simply going to have to come to terms with the Western world's insistence that everyone has the right to be an asshole.

Ironically, Muslim extremists are so fucking stupid, they still haven't figure out that the best way to combat Western insults to their Prophet is to ignore them... rather than, you know, draw worldwide attention to their work by orchestrating violent attacks. Nobody outside of France had even heard of Charlie Hebdo prior to his murder.

Zaune wrote:You know what? If the attention-seeking edgelord who this was a good idea gets kneecapped or has their house burned down, I will have exactly fuck-all sympathy. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons were in decidedly questionable taste already, but this is crossing the fucking line. Freedom of speech should not include freedom from the consequences of going out of your way to be a dick.

Being a dick is worthy of someone being rendered homeless or grievously injured? Are you super cereal?

No speech, no matter how dickish, should have serious injury (or for that matter freaking death as was the case in the Charlie Hebbo killings that inspired this bestiality laden game) as the consequences of it. I'd dare say physically attacking someone for some dickish thing they said, wrote, drew, or animated is by far the more dickish thing then insulting some religious icon.

Freedom of speech should even cover people being a dick or its kinda fucking useless.

Penis.

Joun_Lord wrote:

Zaune wrote:You know what? If the attention-seeking edgelord who this was a good idea gets kneecapped or has their house burned down, I will have exactly fuck-all sympathy. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons were in decidedly questionable taste already, but this is crossing the fucking line. Freedom of speech should not include freedom from the consequences of going out of your way to be a dick.

Being a dick is worthy of someone being rendered homeless or grievously injured? Are you super cereal?

No speech, no matter how dickish, should have serious injury (or for that matter freaking death as was the case in the Charlie Hebbo killings that inspired this bestiality laden game) as the consequences of it. I'd dare say physically attacking someone for some dickish thing they said, wrote, drew, or animated is by far the more dickish thing then insulting some religious icon.

Freedom of speech should even cover people being a dick or its kinda fucking useless.

Penis.

That people ought not to be killed for causing offense is a fine moral principle - that such offenses are used to justify ever greater repression and atrocity is unfortunately a reality. I daresay a lot of you in the west making a big deal out of what a non-issue this don't appreciate just how dangerous formal and informal restrictions on freedom of speech are in the rest of the world independent of the litany of american crimes. My government no doubt thinks Snowden did us a service exposing american hypocrisy and criminal actions, but if anyone tried to do the same against them, well I think there's some perfectly fine treason laws we can use...

Now if it was a blatant attack on Muslims I might feel differently but just like pictures of Jesus screwing Buddha and a couple other deities (which does exist and was posted I think in the comic thread in N&P) aren't an attack of Jesus freaks and Buddha lovers, this admittedly low brow and insulting game I don't think really is.

How did it go again? Ah yes, you don't get to define what is or is not offensive to muslims - muslims do. And even the most moderate muslim government may stop short of killing you, but tossing you in jail is certainly an option.

Channel72 wrote:People have done worse with sacred Christian iconography, and nobody got murdered. Islamic extremists are simply going to have to come to terms with the Western world's insistence that everyone has the right to be an asshole.

Ironically, Muslim extremists are so fucking stupid, they still haven't figure out that the best way to combat Western insults to their Prophet is to ignore them... rather than, you know, draw worldwide attention to their work by orchestrating violent attacks. Nobody outside of France had even heard of Charlie Hebdo prior to his murder.

Really now. That's the point right? Now the entire muslim world knows about the existence of these insults and can react accordingly. Sure, in many cases that means "oh dear we shouldn't promote people killing in our name" but it also means "why are we letting westerners get away with blatant insult against our religion". That their leaders say that it's unfortunate people were killed is one thing, but it's pretty obvious that if someone were to do the same in their countries they would be subject to legal sanction and punishment.

It is a long-standing tenet of religious freedom, freedom of expression etc. that one does not deserve to be murdered for works of expression, no matter how poor the taste.

Is it offensive? Sure. But if he hasn't broken any criminal laws then there is nothing they should do. They just have to bear it, it is part of the responsibility of trying to be a mature religion and not one of the middle ages.

Thanas wrote:It is a long-standing tenet of religious freedom, freedom of expression etc. that one does not deserve to be murdered for works of expression, no matter how poor the taste.

Is it offensive? Sure. But if he hasn't broken any criminal laws then there is nothing they should do. They just have to bear it, it is part of the responsibility of trying to be a mature religion and not one of the middle ages.

Well it is all well and good that in Europe you can force them to bear it. Regretfully in places where they are the dominant religious power they choose to exercise their power not the merely 'bear it' but to actively suppress it. Of course this is not limited to Islam (hello PRC, nice "freedom of speech" you have there!) but still.

Incidentally that thing about the Christian iconography - it's all well and good that most mainstream christians do not react in such a manner. This is why I cannot take seriously arguments that go "but what about <bring up ludicrously fringe christian group>" whenever Islamic extremism is brought up.

AniThyng wrote:Well it is all well and good that in Europe you can force them to bear it. Regretfully in places where they are the dominant religious power they choose to exercise their power not the merely 'bear it' but to actively suppress it. Of course this is not limited to Islam (hello PRC, nice "freedom of speech" you have there!) but still.

Yeah, but what can and/or should the western world do about that? (In my opinion, very little)

Thanas wrote:

AniThyng wrote:Well it is all well and good that in Europe you can force them to bear it. Regretfully in places where they are the dominant religious power they choose to exercise their power not the merely 'bear it' but to actively suppress it. Of course this is not limited to Islam (hello PRC, nice "freedom of speech" you have there!) but still.

Yeah, but what can and/or should the western world do about that? (In my opinion, very little)

Yeah I wish I knew. The world was a lot simpler when I thought that you really could change the world by righteous curbstomping of dictators and imposition of "rule of law" and "justice" by "aggressive" UN Peacekeeping.

Now I know that it just leads to more misery and nobody wins.

Even if you try other means - say, economic sanctions - what does that acomplish? "Hey, we don't like the way you throw political opponents in jail on trumped up charges and your anti homosexuality laws. How about we just refuse to buy anything you export".

Yay! I'm sure the starving population after this unfortunate economic clusterfuck will be willing to change their mindset.

Last time this discussion came up I took the side of "don't offend them because it will get people killed". Which was a change from my first conversation about this where I took the "fuck them, get over it you fucking fanatics" side. I think I'm shifting back to my first position on this issue. Freedom isn't free (shut up ), but the price, unfortunately, is blood. Sometimes it's soldiers blood, sometimes it's a revolutionaries blood, sometimes it's bold leader fighting for progress' blood, and sometimes it's innocent children's blood. But I think it's worth it.

Thing is, this will keep happening. There will always be people out there who draw cartoons in magazines, and program games, and create crappy youtube videos depicting Muhammed in various states of indecency. I agree with Flagg - though I often have misgivings about whether or not something goes too far, I would rather live in a world where this happens every single day than one where you're not allowed to do it.

Question, when George Tiller was murdered, did someone program a "Coathanger Simulator" where the goal was to tear late-term fetuses out of pregnant nuns/dutiful christian housewives or something? Well, no, of course not, instead more abortion clinics were closed down in the US because christian terrorism works and the public doesn't care so much.

So I fail to see the point of this. Muslims (AKA people from the Middle East) are already constantly insulted and in worse ways in the West, including multi-million dollar movies that portray them as filthy Untermenschen worthy of death (The Sniper, 300), so this juvenile ejaculation isn't even serving any "higher" purpose other than trolling people and the programer can't even say he's taking any sort of bold stance on religious freedom since the chances of getting killed by muslim extremists in the West are already lower than death by lightning.

Wanna make a bold stance about religious freedom in the US? Make the above mentioned Coathanger Simulator and distribute it in person at baptist churches in the Deep South.

Metahive wrote:Question, when George Tiller was murdered, did someone program a "Coathanger Simulator" where the goal was to tear late-term fetuses out of pregnant nuns/dutiful christian housewives or something? Well, no, of course not, instead more abortion clinics were closed down in the US because christian terrorism works and the public doesn't care so much.

So I fail to see the point of this. Muslims (AKA people from the Middle East) are already constantly insulted and in worse ways in the West, including multi-million dollar movies that portray them as filthy Untermenschen worthy of death (The Sniper, 300), so this juvenile ejaculation isn't even serving any "higher" purpose other than trolling people and the programer can't even say he's taking any sort of bold stance on religious freedom since the chances of getting killed by muslim extremists in the West are already lower than death by lightning.

Wanna make a bold stance about religious freedom in the US? Make the above mentioned Coathanger Simulator and distribute it in person at baptist churches in the Deep South.

The biggest problem I have with these analogies is that all they tell you is that Christianity/America can be "just as bad", and you kind of really have to stretch to find your examples. (Good luck proving that there do not exist significant opposition to abortion in Muslim societies, especially when paired with implied illegitimate sex)

Granted, there is literally nothing that can't be twisted to demonstrate to an audience that the west is bad - both "the west allows too much free speech to the point that religion is allowed to be insulted" and "the west goes out of its way to insult Islam" are equally applicable and used in Muslim discourse on "the west". and arguing that the west is racist and represses muslim religious freedom is HILARIOUS coming from societies that punish apostasy and have state sanctioned racial/religious discrimination themselves.

I dunno what your point is when it comes to "coat hanger simulators", but South Park creators depicted Jesus watching porn while Buddha snorts coke, which has to be at least similar in kind to depicting Mohammad as a bestialist, if not quite in degree. I don't remember Buddhists or Christians threatening them with death. Boycotts, yes. Not death.

AnyThing wrote:The biggest problem I have with these analogies is that all they tell you is that Christianity/America can be "just as bad", and you kind of really have to stretch to find your examples. (Good luck proving that there do not exist significant opposition to abortion in Muslim societies, especially when paired with implied illegitimate sex)

Terralthra wrote:I dunno what your point is when it comes to "coat hanger simulators", but South Park creators depicted Jesus watching porn while Buddha snorts coke, which has to be at least similar in kind to depicting Mohammad as a bestialist, if not quite in degree. I don't remember Buddhists or Christians threatening them with death. Boycotts, yes. Not death.

You're both missing the point.

Abortion is an issue that drives certain Christians in the West to extremes (the George Tiller murder is just one example of that), like the issue of depicting Mohammed does for certain Muslims. And what's more, they're pushing their way through on it in the US by making sure that fewer and fewer clinics offer abortions. They're winning this battle. yet the public at large is almost completely indifferent about it. This is a fight that actually needs people taking a stand, not beating down on a minority that's already weak and marginalized and can't hope to affect any lasting change anyway.

Of course I ask this, if someone actually had written a coathanger simulator in reaction to the George Tiller murder or any other abortion clinic bombings, would anyone here consider it a productive contribution to the debate?

ETA:
I also say this, I'm of the firm belief that the Charlie Hebdo attacks and other similar acts don't serve the purpose of seriously attempting to abolish free speech in the West (terrorists are delusional, but not that delusional), but to create a divide between Muslims and non-muslims, to, in other words, troll people and provoke them into petty acts of revenge against Muslims and drive them into further isolation from the rest of society so they're easier pickings for extremism. That's why I'm opposed to stuff like shown in the OP, because I think that's exactly the sort of reaction the terrorists want to come about.

Metahive wrote:Question, when George Tiller was murdered, did someone program a "Coathanger Simulator" where the goal was to tear late-term fetuses out of pregnant nuns/dutiful christian housewives or something? Well, no, of course not, instead more abortion clinics were closed down in the US because christian terrorism works and the public doesn't care so much.

I don't know if there was anything the result of George Tiller being capped in the house of Gawd but its not like there ain't already abortion simulators of the armpits of the interwebs. You can find a whole page of abortion related stuff on newgrounds.

The problem is atleast here in Christian fundie dominated Murica, abortion bombings and protests and killings is old hat. Looking it up on wiki shows while there was only about 8 murders there have been hundreds of physical attacks, kidnappings, bombings, arsons, acid attacks, and car attacks. Which just proves for motherfuckers who go on and on AND FUCKING ON about the sanctity of life these pieces of shit don't actually give one shit about human life, just controlling other peoples bodies.

But unfortunately because of the decades of this shit going on people cannot feel a proper RAGE hearing about these assclowns doing their shit. News seems to barely give any attention to attacks, even during the George Tiller killing. Conservatard news gave more airtime to the Kermit Gosnell illegal abortions a few years later but that was to be expected.

Compare that to random morons with guns attacking schools, theaters, or more schools or Muslims crazies attacking unhinged.....with guns and bombs. Mass shootings are one of the few things to knock Kardashian news off the front pages, they literally make celebs of those crazy ass cunts. Muslims attacks are just as well publicized......well Muslims attacks against white people. Muslims kidnapping a bunch of little black girls or attacking a mall in Africa and killing far, FAR more people then any mall shooting here in Patriotland, who gives a fuck?

This is me talking out my ass but I think the reason for this is mainly because nobody cares about clinic attacks not because they agree with it but because they don't think it can happen to them. Only dirty ungodly sluts get a vacuum up their neither regions and those who man the vacuums choose their professions with the risks included.

Terrorists of the Muslims and irate white guy persuasion (because less be honest the mass shooters are fucking terrorists) can strike anytime, anywhere, anyone. One could be behind me with an AK or AR while I sit upon my butt at my computer, one could have a bomb vest riding under your car to work, attack you when you are having coffee, buying ironic t-shirts at Hot-Topic in the mall, watching terrible sequels in the movie theaters (luckily that is becoming less of a problem, the theater bit not the terrible sequels), or when you are visiting senile old granny by way of a plane. When you are sitting on the toilet, look up, whats that, you just got terrorized.

The news hypes this shit up, tries to make people afraid to do anything, afraid that any second some turbaned brown guy or camoed white guy will jump out and attack.

The same fear cannot be played up with abortion attacks and therefore the news and Joe Average don't care.

The major difference between the abortion example and the Muhammed one is that, in the former, a case can realistically be made that "harm" is being done. You cannot prove that anyone is being harmed by depicting Muhammed. Being offended is not "harm" in this sense.

As for how to handle the situation as a whole - it is difficult. People who are in favor of things like punishing apostates are also happy to use their freedom of speech elsewhere to spout their hateful dogma. I always wondered how Muslims would react if countries enacted anti-theism laws - imagine a country where publicly announcing your theistic views or disapproval of homosexuals/LGBT people was met with life imprisonment or the death penalty. Imagine if a country mandated that any house of worship must not only permit currently excluded groups in, but required the inclusion of said groups in any such activities...

AniThyng wrote:The biggest problem I have with these analogies is that all they tell you is that Christianity/America can be "just as bad", and you kind of really have to stretch to find your examples. (Good luck proving that there do not exist significant opposition to abortion in Muslim societies, especially when paired with implied illegitimate sex)

America and her allies killed over half a million Iraqis in a war that had no point. America funded the Afghan mujahideen which formed the nucleus of al-Qaida and ISIS. The American war in Iraq destabilized the region enough to allow ISIS to come to power and murder tens of thousands of people and destroy priceless historical artifacts from the dawn of human civilizations.

Yes, America is just as bad, if not worse, than Islamic fundamentalists. Often times, the US directly supports Islamic fundamentalists (Saudi Arabia, for instance; the aforementioned Afghan mujahideen).

And, yet, Muslims are demonized for having the gall to be offended over shit like this, despite the fact that often times the best of bad options is Islamic fundamentalism because, hey, it gets results against the West (despite how often the fundamentalists are given support by the West).

But, hey, those third world ragheads just need to act civilized, right?

Akhlut wrote:

AniThyng wrote:The biggest problem I have with these analogies is that all they tell you is that Christianity/America can be "just as bad", and you kind of really have to stretch to find your examples. (Good luck proving that there do not exist significant opposition to abortion in Muslim societies, especially when paired with implied illegitimate sex)

America and her allies killed over half a million Iraqis in a war that had no point. America funded the Afghan mujahideen which formed the nucleus of al-Qaida and ISIS. The American war in Iraq destabilized the region enough to allow ISIS to come to power and murder tens of thousands of people and destroy priceless historical artifacts from the dawn of human civilizations.

Yes, America is just as bad, if not worse, than Islamic fundamentalists. Often times, the US directly supports Islamic fundamentalists (Saudi Arabia, for instance; the aforementioned Afghan mujahideen).

And, yet, Muslims are demonized for having the gall to be offended over shit like this, despite the fact that often times the best of bad options is Islamic fundamentalism because, hey, it gets results against the West (despite how often the fundamentalists are given support by the West).

But, hey, those third world ragheads just need to act civilized, right?

Yeah look if a shithead had the balls to pull a game like this off in my country and identify himself he'd be thrown in jail and probably flogged before Amnesty can whine that we third worlders don't understand freedom of speech. I've been pretty consistent on this - we may not murder the guy, but toss him in jail and possibly torture him? Yes.

I frankly have no idea where to begin with the America is worse than Islamic fundamentalism thing because the Muslim world cares far more about americas unwavering support of Israel then propping up the house of saud.

In fact I think it's possible that all is forgiven if the US smacks down Israel. Want to try?