French Mohammed cartooons

[Vendetta]

I just don't think that the Islamic faith should get special treatment regarding free speech or criticism against it simply because it has a high number of extremists willing to use violence at the slightest of provocation. If anything, it deserves to be mocked even more.

That depends what your intended outcome is.

As Stark pointed out alllll the way back on the first page, if your intended outcome includes fewer extremists willing to use violence, provoking the ones that are there now is counterproductive to your aims.

But, y'know, if your aim is to always have brown people to mock for being strange and different, go ahead, don't try and find any common ground other than mutual disdain.

[wautd]

I just don't think that the Islamic faith should get special treatment regarding free speech or criticism against it simply because it has a high number of extremists willing to use violence at the slightest of provocation. If anything, it deserves to be mocked even more.

That depends what your intended outcome is.

As Stark pointed out alllll the way back on the first page, if your intended outcome includes fewer extremists willing to use violence, provoking the ones that are there now is counterproductive to your aims.

A lot of moderates were ashamed at the behaviour of the extremists of their shamed fast. For all we know, these cartoons help the moderates to distantiate themselves from the extremists.

But, y'know, if your aim is to always have brown people to mock for being strange and different, go ahead, don't try and find any common ground other than mutual disdain.

It's not about mocking brown people for being strange and different. It's about mocking extremists who use their faith as justification to be violent scumbags

[Vendetta]

A lot of moderates were ashamed at the behaviour of the extremists of their shamed fast. For all we know, these cartoons help the moderates to distantiate themselves from the extremists.

If that were the case, we'd be getting statements from them saying things like "Hey guys, mocking the prophet is really helping our cause as Muslims, keep it up", rather than what we do get from moderate muslims, which is more along the likes of "I Am Disappoint".

Because not only does it not help them, it doesn't help them integrate as immigrants when the communities they are trying to integrate into are all sniggering at them for being primitive bomb chucking brown people, it gives the demagogues more ammunition to rally around, "This is what they think of us!"

It's not about mocking brown people for being strange and different. It's about mocking extremists who use their faith as justification to be violent scumbags

Except it really isn't, because that message would be as strong if it weren't invariably aimed at Islam, because a nonenominational satire could be as appropriate to Christian fundamentalists and their approach to abortion clinics.

[Zadius]

I just don't think that the Islamic faith should get special treatment regarding free speech or criticism against it simply because it has a high number of extremists willing to use violence at the slightest of provocation. If anything, it deserves to be mocked even more.

That depends what your intended outcome is.

As Stark pointed out alllll the way back on the first page, if your intended outcome includes fewer extremists willing to use violence, provoking the ones that are there now is counterproductive to your aims.

But, y'know, if your aim is to always have brown people to mock for being strange and different, go ahead, don't try and find any common ground other than mutual disdain.

The message I'm getting is that mocking Jesus is OK, because it doesn't provoke violence, but mocking Muhammad is not OK because it does provoke violence. So I guess the more violent a religion's extremists are the less valid it is to criticize it. What twisted logic. No wonder Christian fundamentalists have fatwa envy.

[Vendetta]

The message I'm getting is that mocking Jesus is OK, because it doesn't provoke violence, but mocking Muhammad is not OK because it does provoke violence. So I guess the more violent a religion's extremists are the less valid it is to criticize it. What twisted logic. No wonder Christian fundamentalists have fatwa envy.

Well if your intent is to engage with people in the deep south about the necessity of abortion rights, and the content of your message is "Jesus was a gay abortion doctor", you're not going to get very far with those people and you're just going to get a lot of resentment and anger. And that's the same thing.

Mocking Muhammad provokes violence, and if you want less violence from the people it provokes to violence, doing it is counterproductive, no matter how much you also talk about how they should exhibit a grown up response to your childish taunts.

[Zadius]

The message I'm getting is that mocking Jesus is OK, because it doesn't provoke violence, but mocking Muhammad is not OK because it does provoke violence. So I guess the more violent a religion's extremists are the less valid it is to criticize it. What twisted logic. No wonder Christian fundamentalists have fatwa envy.

Well if your intent is to engage with people in the deep south about the necessity of abortion rights, and the content of your message is "Jesus was a gay abortion doctor", you're not going to get very far with those people and you're just going to get a lot of resentment and anger. And that's the same thing.

Mocking Muhammad provokes violence, and if you want less violence from the people it provokes to violence, doing it is counterproductive, no matter how much you also talk about how they should exhibit a grown up response to your childish taunts.

By being intimidated by their threats, in only encourages them to do it because they see how successful it is at shutting down criticism. Like I said earlier in this thread, it's a bit like paying a ransom: you get a short-term gain but in the long term you lose. Also, I would not say Jesus was a gay abortion doctor because that's stupid, but you know damn well that legitimate criticisms are reacted to just as violently as childish taunts. It's a legitimate criticism to say that Muhammad was a child molester, for instance. He did have sex with a 9-year-old girl according to Islamic tradition, after all. That fact doesn't seem to stop the riots.

[Vendetta]

By being intimidated by their threats, in only encourages them to do it because they see how successful it is at shutting down criticism.

Except there weren't any threats, there was a piece of blood libel out of the blue which was intended to provoke violence and did.

Without that there wouldn't have been anything to be intimidated by unless your default position is "I am intimidated by brown people".

It's a legitimate criticism to say that Muhammad was a child molester, for instance. He did have sex with a 9-year-old girl according to Islamic tradition, after all. That fact doesn't seem to stop the riots.

Is it? Or does it ignore the fact that child marriage was completely normal for pretty much every society the world over at the time in order to cast imprecations on a particular individual. Hell, the story frequently cited as the greatest romance in the western canon is about a pair of twelve year olds. (Romeo and Juliet).

It also ignores the specifics of the case (all of Mohammed's marriages after his first wife died were political marriages, he was in a monogamous relationship with his first wife, who was 15 years older than him, for 25 years)

So actually, no, that's not a legitimate criticism because it ignores the context of the early 7th century and the cultural norms that operated then and the way it is depicted in the film is completely at odds with everything else known about the people involved. (Protip: Aisha also was no shrinking violet, she was one of the most powerful figures in early Islam, she had a great deal of political power, spiritual authority, and even in one case led troops in battle)

[Terralthra]

It's a legitimate criticism to say that Muhammad was a child molester, for instance. He did have sex with a 9-year-old girl according to Islamic tradition, after all. That fact doesn't seem to stop the riots.

Is it? Or does it ignore the fact that child marriage was completely normal for pretty much every society the world over at the time in order to cast imprecations on a particular individual. Hell, the story frequently cited as the greatest romance in the western canon is about a pair of twelve year olds. (Romeo and Juliet).

Are you joking? First of all, Juliet's 13 (18 in the original novel, and Romeo's age is never given. At the beginning of the play, when Paris asks Capulet for her hand, Capulet says she's too young and asks him to wait two years. Ignoring this, 13 is at least pubescent, making Romeo (estimated somewhere between 16 and 21 by most experts) creepy, but not pedophiliac. 9 is distinctly pre-adolescent.

Juliet falling in love at 13, Aisha and Mohammad consummating their relationship when she was 9, both are comparable in that each was considered "appropriate" at the time, but that doesn't make the latter any less pedophiliac. Islamic scriptures even point out that she hadn't menstruated yet (as a good thing!) and that after the marriage was consummated, Aisha went back to playing with toys.

[DarkArk]

Or does it ignore the fact that child marriage was completely normal for pretty much every society the world over at the time

You have any evidence for that? Because I'm calling bullshit. Age at first marriage haven't changed significantly in the last several centuries.

[Zadius]

Except there weren't any threats, there was a piece of blood libel out of the blue which was intended to provoke violence and did.

Without that there wouldn't have been anything to be intimidated by unless your default position is "I am intimidated by brown people".

The threat is that if you insult our favorite superhero or denigrate our favorite book, we will kill you or anyone associated with you. This threat has existed at least since the Rushdie Affair.

Is it? Or does it ignore the fact that child marriage was completely normal for pretty much every society the world over at the time in order to cast imprecations on a particular individual. Hell, the story frequently cited as the greatest romance in the western canon is about a pair of twelve year olds. (Romeo and Juliet).

It also ignores the specifics of the case (all of Mohammed's marriages after his first wife died were political marriages, he was in a monogamous relationship with his first wife, who was 15 years older than him, for 25 years)

So actually, no, that's not a legitimate criticism because it ignores the context of the early 7th century and the cultural norms that operated then and the way it is depicted in the film is completely at odds with everything else known about the people involved. (Protip: Aisha also was no shrinking violet, she was one of the most powerful figures in early Islam, she had a great deal of political power, spiritual authority, and even in one case led troops in battle)

Even if it were true that sex with 9-year-olds was completely normal back then, it's interesting that Allah apparently didn't consider it important to correct that behavior. Perhaps Mohammad could have led a jihad against child sexual abuse rather than a jihad against infidels. I mean, isn't a prophet supposed to be better than that?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Except there weren't any threats, there was a piece of blood libel out of the blue which was intended to provoke violence and did.

Without that there wouldn't have been anything to be intimidated by unless your default position is "I am intimidated by brown people".

The threat is that if you insult our favorite superhero or denigrate our favorite book, we will kill you or anyone associated with you. This threat has existed at least since the Rushdie Affair.

If this is the extent of the threat, then to continue your metaphor, if the hostage takers say "if you insult my mother we will kill all the hostages," then the police should insult the hostage takers' mothers on principle! Because if they don't, it encourages people to take hostages or something?

Even if we assume radical Islam is a diabolical evil rather than a response to many events past and present, it's still not right for us to provoke them just because we can and their response is "unreasonable".

[Zadius]

Except there weren't any threats, there was a piece of blood libel out of the blue which was intended to provoke violence and did.

Without that there wouldn't have been anything to be intimidated by unless your default position is "I am intimidated by brown people".

The threat is that if you insult our favorite superhero or denigrate our favorite book, we will kill you or anyone associated with you. This threat has existed at least since the Rushdie Affair.

If this is the extent of the threat, then to continue your metaphor, if the hostage takers say "if you insult my mother we will kill all the hostages," then the police should insult the hostage takers' mothers on principle! Because if they don't, it encourages people to take hostages or something?

Even if we assume radical Islam is a diabolical evil rather than a response to many events past and present, it's still not right for us to provoke them just because we can and their response is "unreasonable".

If the hostage taker's mother was a convicted serial killer, you would not expect the whole world to suddenly respond with, "Oh, she was a lovely lady, we didn't mean what we said about her being a brutal killer and psychopathic murderer. We condemn the judge, jury, and prosecutor who convicted her. Pretty please will you release the hostages?"

If Muhammad was in reality a swell guy, then maybe you'd have a point. But he wasn't. And if I said we should insult them "just because we can" you might have a point there too. But I didn't.

[Ralin]

So, quick question. How many of you are specifically upset over the cartoonists trying to stir shit up and how many of you are upset at them just running the risk without what you think is a good reason? What if they just really like mocking religious figures in general and they pulled Mohammed's name out of a hat this month?

[Grumman]

Terribly unfair? I'm sure they'll get over it but they're free to throw an insult back.

Why should the world operate strictly according to the way you think people should act/think/feel/etc.? What makes your view on matters inherently superior to all others?

That their view is based on a false premise, that God exists and talked to Mohammed? That their view is that portraying a historical character, let alone denigrating him, should be punishable by death? That their position, that the law should be defined by the views of their imaginary god, is objectively worse than secularism?

Do you also argue from moral relativism when an Ultra-Orthodox Jew throws rocks at women and children for dressing "immodestly"? Or when a Muslim murders a woman for the crime of being raped? Or how about when a Christian Scientist leaves their child to die a slow and painful death because they think their false god will rescue him?

[ray245]

If the hostage taker's mother was a convicted serial killer, you would not expect the whole world to suddenly respond with, "Oh, she was a lovely lady, we didn't mean what we said about her being a brutal killer and psychopathic murderer. We condemn the judge, jury, and prosecutor who convicted her. Pretty please will you release the hostages?"

Err, no. What the police will do instead is simply keep their mouth shut and stop pissing off the hostage takers unnecessary, and let the mediator take control of the talks.

You do not need to swing from one extreme to another extreme when it comes down to criticising Islam. Just because people here are discouraging others from mocking Islam does not mean we are asking everyone to praise Islam.

That their view is based on a false premise, that God exists and talked to Mohammed? That their view is that portraying a historical character, let alone denigrating him, should be punishable by death? That their position, that the law should be defined by the views of their imaginary god, is objectively worse than secularism?

Do you also argue from moral relativism when an Ultra-Orthodox Jew throws rocks at women and children for dressing "immodestly"? Or when a Muslim murders a woman for the crime of being raped? Or how about when a Christian Scientist leaves their child to die a slow and painful death because they think their false god will rescue him?

So what? To them, they can just say "we don't give a fuck about your western way of logic" and continue with what they think is right.

There is zero incentives for them to accept our sense of logic and morality. They have never been brought up to accept those values, and they do not want to follow the western way of thinking and life.

[Jub]

The real issue here as that the cartoonists are in the right no matter what they intended. The cartoonist isn't killing people and the pissed off people are.

The Middle East is clearly in the wrong and should be dealing with these criminals without outside support. However, due to inability, or lack of desire they don't do this. These nations are like spoiled teens thinking they know everything and demanding loudly to be taken seriously. Hell they're the school shooters of the world, nobody understands them so they might as well just shoot up a school to show that they can make an impact on the world. Yet we look at them and wonder why they haven't grown up like the rest of us.

[wautd]

So, quick question. How many of you are specifically upset over the cartoonists trying to stir shit up

Not in the slightest.

What if they just really like mocking religious figures in general and they pulled Mohammed's name out of a hat this month?

In the vid in OP's article it's clearly mentioned they often mock other religions as well. Publishing a comic about pedophelic priests just after (yet another) pedophile scandal is just as apt as posting a comic about fundies who get violent because someone dared to insult their prophet. Islam isn't any more special then Christianity, Hindiusm or the Ancient Greek pantheon.

[Metahive]

The real issue here as that the cartoonists are in the right no matter what they intended. The cartoonist isn't killing people and the pissed off people are.

Why are you still not grasping the whole context issue? The West has been taking a dump on the Middle East ever since Napoleon invaded Egypt to steal its national treasures. Imagine a man who's been beaten up by a bunch of thugs. What the cartoonists are doing is like walking up to that man lying bleeding on the ground and pissing on him while insulting his family, just because they can. Yeah, that might make that man somewhat angry, whoop-dee-fuckin-doo! Actions don't take place in a vacuum and have actual consequences, who'd have ever thought of that.

But o no no, I forgot, in Jubworld, Middle-Easterners are just irrational and violent animals that get regularly angry because they hate freedom and puppies out of the blackness of their dark hearts.

The Middle East is clearly in the wrong and should be dealing with these criminals without outside support. However, due to inability, or lack of desire they don't do this. These nations are like spoiled teens thinking they know everything and demanding loudly to be taken seriously. Hell they're the school shooters of the world, nobody understands them so they might as well just shoot up a school to show that they can make an impact on the world. Yet we look at them and wonder why they haven't grown up like the rest of us.

Why should they punish them? When GW Bush lied to the UN and the american people, invaded and fucked up Iraq causing thousands of deaths, he wasn't punished in any way for it and neither were any of his cronies (better yet, he was re-elected). Heck, all the Haditha murderers got was a slap on the wrist and that after all efforts were taken to hush it all up.

We are not exactly leading by example here, dude. Grown-up my ass.

[Akhlut]

The threat is that if you insult our favorite superhero or denigrate our favorite book, we will kill you or anyone associated with you. This threat has existed at least since the Rushdie Affair.

The grand majority of protests have been peaceful and haven't had much in the way of death threats. And, like I've been saying since I've joined this conversation, there's a lot of residual anger at the West because, goddamn, Western nations have been fucking monsters to Dar al-Islam for the past two centuries.

Iran, for instance, had been dealing with the British trying to subjugate their nation for oil interests since the early 20th century and had to deal with the Shah's secret police force brutalizing people just so the British could have an oil monopoly in Iran. That led directly to Ayatollah Khomeini leading the Iranian Revolution, which led to the current state of affairs.

Christ on a cracker, are you people completely unable to see the historical context of things, or are you just that angry that there are brown people who get pissed off at how white people treat them?

Even if it were true that sex with 9-year-olds was completely normal back then, it's interesting that Allah apparently didn't consider it important to correct that behavior. Perhaps Mohammad could have led a jihad against child sexual abuse rather than a jihad against infidels. I mean, isn't a prophet supposed to be better than that?

And if secular humanists really did care about respecting human beings, wouldn't they argue that petty shit like insulting people's religious beliefs is fucking stupid when it would be better to spend money on providing education, healthcare, or one of a billion other important things rather than on producing a movie used to bash Islam or draw a bunch of satirical cartoons? Because all I'm seeing from your side of the argument is that the cartoonists and video producers were well-justified in making petty, banal, and asinine media rather than actually engaging in helpful behavior.

[Akhlut]

The Middle East is clearly in the wrong and should be dealing with these criminals without outside support. However, due to inability, or lack of desire they don't do this. These nations are like spoiled teens thinking they know everything and demanding loudly to be taken seriously. Hell they're the school shooters of the world, nobody understands them so they might as well just shoot up a school to show that they can make an impact on the world. Yet we look at them and wonder why they haven't grown up like the rest of us.

Western nations used them as pawns in their global games of imperialism for the past two centuries. Why should they respect us in the least and listen to our demands to how they should act? Why shouldn't they engage in asymmetrical warfare with their oppressors? After all, I can't think of a Western nation in the world that condemned the partisan movements of WWII when they were being oppressed, despite the fact that they used terrorist tactics (well, aside from the Western nations that were fighting the partisans at the time, obviously). Why is it wrong when the people of the Third World do it, then?

[Zadius]

The grand majority of protests have been peaceful and haven't had much in the way of death threats.

I've only criticized the violent protests, of which there have been many over the last few decades. I defend their right to protest peacefully.

And, like I've been saying since I've joined this conversation, there's a lot of residual anger at the West because, goddamn, Western nations have been fucking monsters to Dar al-Islam for the past two centuries.

Iran, for instance, had been dealing with the British trying to subjugate their nation for oil interests since the early 20th century and had to deal with the Shah's secret police force brutalizing people just so the British could have an oil monopoly in Iran. That led directly to Ayatollah Khomeini leading the Iranian Revolution, which led to the current state of affairs.

Christ on a cracker, are you people completely unable to see the historical context of things, or are you just that angry that there are brown people who get pissed off at how white people treat them?

I know the history. I accept that there is a lot of anger in the Muslim world over past and present actions of Western powers, I just don't accept that as an excuse or even a complete explanation for the current tensions. Religion has a lot to do with it, and criticism of religion is at least as important as criticism of Western foreign policies and attitudes. I've engaged in both: I was for the right to build a mosque near ground zero and against the banning of headdresses in France and other European countries. I defended American Congressman Kieth Ellison's right to swear in on the Koran as long as others can swear in on the Bible. I'm pretty consistently for freedom of religion. I'm also not anti-Muslim at all. I'm for a two-state solution in Palestine and consider Israel to be the biggest hindrance to peace, I was against the Iraq war, but I was for the deposition of Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak, Ben Ali, and Saleh. And yes, although I wasn't alive then, the Pahlavi dynasty of Iran also (I'm also hopeful that the Ayatollahs will be overthrown soon, because they aren't any better). I support their right to self-determination in their own countries. So, don't try to paint me as an ignoramus who simply hates brown people. That's a cheap attack.

Even if it were true that sex with 9-year-olds was completely normal back then, it's interesting that Allah apparently didn't consider it important to correct that behavior. Perhaps Mohammad could have led a jihad against child sexual abuse rather than a jihad against infidels. I mean, isn't a prophet supposed to be better than that?

And if secular humanists really did care about respecting human beings, wouldn't they argue that petty shit like insulting people's religious beliefs is fucking stupid when it would be better to spend money on providing education, healthcare, or one of a billion other important things rather than on producing a movie used to bash Islam or draw a bunch of satirical cartoons? Because all I'm seeing from your side of the argument is that the cartoonists and video producers were well-justified in making petty, banal, and asinine media rather than actually engaging in helpful behavior.

Criticizing religious beliefs in not petty. Organized religion is one of the most powerful forces on the planet. I'm all in favor of providing education and health care, but religion is a huge hindrance to those things; I'm sure you're aware of it. I've also mocked the pope for claiming that condoms increase the chances of contracting HIV. Is that petty, banal, or asinine? If your complaint is that the cartoonists and video producers are not making constructive criticisms, I might well agree because some of them aren't making a strong case; the stupid ones tend to be made by Christian fanatics, by the way. But you know as well as I do that it wouldn't make any difference to the people who feel insulted enough to riot. They don't accept any criticism, however mild. Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a movie about the oppression of women in the Islamic world, for example.

If a video or cartoon makes invalid arguments against Islam or any other topic, criticize it for being stupid. Don't criticize it merely for the fact that it insults or mocks, or because it incites, because that shuts down all criticism, good and bad, and yes, satire and ridicule can be valid forms of critique. And for fuck's sake, definitely don't go to the extreme of saying that they are partly to blame for any violence that occurs in response.

[Zadius]

Sorry for the double post. I had missed this.

If the hostage taker's mother was a convicted serial killer, you would not expect the whole world to suddenly respond with, "Oh, she was a lovely lady, we didn't mean what we said about her being a brutal killer and psychopathic murderer. We condemn the judge, jury, and prosecutor who convicted her. Pretty please will you release the hostages?"

Err, no. What the police will do instead is simply keep their mouth shut and stop pissing off the hostage takers unnecessary, and let the mediator take control of the talks.

You do not need to swing from one extreme to another extreme when it comes down to criticising Islam. Just because people here are discouraging others from mocking Islam does not mean we are asking everyone to praise Islam.

In keeping with the actual metaphor, the hostage takers would be saying they will kill the hostages if anyone insults their mother, not just the police. The mother's life and deeds would also be publicly known, like Muhammad's. So no, you could not expect the entire world to shut up except for perhaps a few hours or days while the police resolve the situation. In the case of insulting Muhammad, there can be no resolution. There will be no "all clear" signal from the police whereby the world can once again acknowledge the awfulness of Muhammad. This is an extant threat which will persist indefinitely. That is not an acceptable outcome and no religion or ideology should be able to win indefinite immunity from criticism, ridicule, or satire, by the use of violence. It's absurd to me that anyone thinks that.

[Connor MacLeod]

First off, there's a difference between criticism and mockery. You can criticize without being insulting (although some people will construe anything as an insult, and you can't help that.) Criticism can be helpful, but I would question whether mockery is helpful (certainly not as helpful.)

Secondly, there is a time and place for criticism and/or mockery. Freedom does not give carte blanche to do whatever you want whenever you want without consequence (eg going into a church during a service, interrupting it and saying 'Jesus Christ Sodomized puppies' is probably not going to fly no matter how staunchly you insist you have the right to say that.) In the case of the French cartoons, I simply do not believe anyone could possibly think this wouldn't be considered inflammatory given the current tensions ALREADY existing - its not as if this is a totally unknown, unpredictable occurance. What is more likely is that they're either morons, or they did it deliberately for sensational purposes.

Now to get back to that 'consequences' issue, because that's really a big part of why there's an argument over this, and consequences are why some people keep pointing out how mockery can be 'counter-productive'. Col Crackpot on page one summarized the opposite position fairly well with 'tolerance of intolerance is bad' - basically, Muslims don't deserve special consideraiton or treatment because they might get violent. Which is a fair, because that would actually be intimidation (and thats probably the goal of the violence, in fact.) But that doesn't mean rampant mockery and criticism are ALWAYS good. This is not a fucking absolute either/or issue people. Simply saying 'Criticism and/or mockery can be counter productive' is not the same as saying 'YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE ANYONE, EVER, BECAUSE THEY MIGHT GET MAD.' The point, and I think this keeps getting hammered home (again refer to Aaron's first post on page 2) is that 'if you want to actually SOLVE the issue, you have to do more than yell at people and call them morons.'

Which leads to another problem in this thread. There seems to be some underlying assumption that everyone is born with their crticial thinking capabilities active and running (rather than being something you learn, because we're born as fucking bipedla monkeys.) It would be lovely if the entire world employed crtiical thinking on a routine basis - we wouldn't have nearly as much conflict or denial of reality as we do (global warming, or the US views on single payer health care.) Unfortunately, people tend not to do this, which causes problems because they will do annoying things like 'pay more attention to the way you say shit rather than the substance of the argument.' humans being humans and all. And that can be a rather big obstacle to actually solving problems. And since you have to educate people into the sort of behaviours you want, you have to overcome those handicaps somehow.

And that is the real conflict. 'I can insult/criticize/mock who I want and they shouldn't be able to restrict us' is all well and good. Refusing to be 'tolerant of intolerance' is good too, but they're not actaully solutions to the problem. This is most important, so let me repeat this again, in big, bold letters. IT IS NOT A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM It might be a goal of sorts, but it doesn't tell you how, or why, or any of those other equally important issues. How do you make people smarter and more logical? Do you invade their countries, bomb the shit out of their temples/mosques/churches and then march them into education camps at gunpoint? Do you try to reason with and persuade the non-fanatical members? What?

Let's say you choose the persuasion/reasoning route. There's obviously going to be those who aren't frothing at the mouth fanatics, but they're just as human as everyone else. They'll be prone to tribalism, identification with a particular group/culture/etc. and those are going to be complications to any effort at 'reasoning and persuasion' - and humans have this annoying habit of not enjoying being yelled at, or insulted, or whatever. (I imagine if you asked any trek fans frequenting this board they might express some annoyment at how often trek gets bashed, for a geeky example. again humans being human.) That means you're probably going to have a hard time persuading people if other people are being deliberately inflammatory (and in a very public manner) at the same time. Again unless you have that critical thinking bit that you're trying to give those people, and unless they've had some good experience at suppressing very human reactions (such as tribalism, or prone to getting offended at perceived insults - perception is a not so minor problem here as well.) they're likely to get offended, and polarized, and be less amenable to persuasion because something they've long held to be valuable and important in their lives is being trivialized and mocked by other people.

So the whole 'counter-productive' point comes down to basically human factors of psychology, perception, and interpretation if you really must simplify it. And thats why you have people arguing that 'maybe its not always good to yell at or make fun of things people like if you don't want them to act a certain way.' Although some people seem to focus more on the 'not yell and make fun of' part to the exclusion of all else, for whatever reason, and I'm feeling cynical enough right now from this debate I expect the point will sail past people's heads again because of HOW DARE YOU TRY AND TELL ME I CAN'T CRITICIZE OR MOCK WHAT I DISLIKE.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm also going to add I get a very disturbing vibe from this thread that goes along the lines of 'people are less important than a principle' namely the freedom to mock/insult whatever one sees fit to, and I suspect thats where alot of the opposition on the other side comes from, because people keep fixating on that 'freedom' angle, but ignore the fact thta words/actions can and do hurt people. Seriously, is the fact that words and deeds can have consequences really THAT unimportant to some of the folk in here, or is it just some sort of miscommunication issue?

[Zadius]

I'm also going to add I get a very disturbing vibe from this thread that goes along the lines of 'people are less important than a principle' namely the freedom to mock/insult whatever one sees fit to, and I suspect thats where alot of the opposition on the other side comes from, because people keep fixating on that 'freedom' angle, but ignore the fact thta words/actions can and do hurt people. Seriously, is the fact that words and deeds can have consequences really THAT unimportant to some of the folk in here, or is it just some sort of miscommunication issue?

Of course words and ideas have consequences. That's what religion is after all and millions of people are negatively affected by it. The least that can be done is to break up the insulation and open things up to opposing words and ideas. Part of the reason some of the people react so angrily to that is because they aren't used to that. I think it would be a great thing if they got used to it. The free flow of ideas (and yes, that sometimes includes stupid ideas) is a positive thing.