Tuesday, June 21, 2011


A common response to the motoons was to emphasize how wrong they were but also to denounce the violent response. I?m not sure if that is a defense of free speech or not, the issue is whether the motoons should have been legal not whether murder in response is good. I assume that it is mostly some sort of groveling apologetic defense of free speech, often preferring to focus on the evil of the cartoons. In other words very understanding and indulgent of the reaction and it makes me a little queasy. Anyway take a look at this


Tracy Leigh said...

hahaha! I read the link. Perhaps laughter isn't the correct response, but isn't the best humour based on irony or ridiculousness. The statement that the cartoons of Mohammed are more damaging to Muslims than the holocaust to Jews, is well, ridiculous. Whether you are damaged by the cartoons very much depends on your own personal choice to be, but there isn't much choice when one is physically and violently shipped off to concentration camps and horrifically killed. How can cartoons be compared to the suffering, anguish and terror as families are separted and killed.

GT said...

Well, the cartoons or the holocaust (actually the cartoons and the holocaust put together) would be nothing compared to how bad it would be for me if anyone said anything horrible about my cats.

stuart said...

notice that nobody has even attempted to defend insulting other peoples cats. the taboo is that strong.