> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 12:55 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Wack A Cartoonist, Become A Millionaire > > I'm not going to bother to try and point to the context of the pictures, > the > fact that no one cared when they were printed and the fact that only one > or > two of them can be seen as negative and most don't even depict Muhammad. > Why > bother as it always comes back to a moral equivalency. > "We upset them so they have a right to riot." > "We upset them so they have a right to bomb us or support that > bombing". > "We upset them so whatever they want goes"
For my purposes I'm happy enough with "we upset them". That's a key to me - everything else is true: violence or calls to violence of any kind is the wrong response. Violence or calls for violence should be condemned in the strongest possible manner. But the key element "we upset them", I think, is being missed by a lot of people. The widespread and common calls of "they're just cartoons - lighten up" aren't helping. (At this point I think things have gotten beyond them particularly hurting either. As somebody else noted the situation is now happily feeding on itself - it no longer needs outside stimuli.) Somebody brought up the scenario of the abused wife and it sort of works for what I'm getting at. An abused wife often knows what triggers abuse. She might call her husband "pencil-dick" and get a beating. Through that action she must then accept an amount of responsibility for the results. She does not in any way need to accept blame for the results. She doesn't need to forgive her husband's actions or accept them in any way as reasonable. Her husbands actions can never be condoned, accepted or defended. Her responsibility isn't causal. But _in that situation_ if she keeps calling him "pencil-dick" then she should _expect_ to be beaten. The violence is wrong, utterly and completely, and excessive, utterly and completely, but it is a _response_ to something clearly inflammatory. That fact shouldn't be ignored if for no other reason than self-preservation. I'm with you in the sense that I think if it wasn't this it would have been something else. What we're dealing with here is essentially a psychopathic culture. A culture so inured to violent response, so horribly stressed in so many ways and so frankly unbalanced that something would have sparked this sooner than later. But all of the condemnable, horrific, detestable acts based on them don't for a second make the cartoons themselves "right" or defensible as non insulting or non-inflammatory. It just makes them "less wrong" (on a grand scale) than the response. So admitting that "we upset them" is as far as I think we need to go. But it's a step that not many seem willing to take. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:197323 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
