[Fett]

Cool, but I'd love to see some drawings with this.

You guys realise Mr. Shhh can DRAW, yeah? 😀

[Fett]

Also one of the posters that he trusted the most, too, was a complete and total jerk. Had absolutely no shame, paraded his characters around as superior to anyone elses, any art he drew was to be considered an honor…

I'm trying to think who this could be, but I honestly have no idea. I don't remember anyone like that who Wreck trusted. It doesn't sound like Yatz, Red Silver, Masschine (who never drew), not DCM, Chris Morrison, Gideon, Coyote, nor TheCollector2, Iczerman, Archangel Dreadnought, nor John Davis (whom Wreck never 'trusted), nor Scoundrel (who never posted), Jenny McKenzie, nor Rex (Panasonicvodo), nor Lingster, Eegore, Alphacentauri, Joel, nor Buddy Busen.

I'll assume it's not me either, so can you tell me who you're thinking of? Because either we see the same person very differently or I'm forgetting someone.

[Fett]

Mr. Shhh!

Dude! You rock! I always liked your artwork. 🙂

[Fett]

Three words as to why:

Slow.

News.

Cycle.

[Fett]

Here's my objective view-

Never knew the guy. Never knew his work. Never got in on the 'fad'.  Never understood the hype.

But he does sound pretty damn emo.

Wreck was the first FMG artist I saw that made me stop and go, "Man. That guy can DRAW." (Note: the "first", not the "only") He has real talent and ability to draw. His work is not perfect, but it's a damn sight above the curve of what the genre normally sees.

– I -am- concerned about his blog because although Wreck is a very negative guy he never made any posts about being suicidal or wanting to give up on life.  This is the first time he's ever made a post like that and it would be something to worry about because he's never displayed this type of "emo" behavior before.

Not true. One of the early collaborations on his board was "Lady Death" which he picked because he'd been "thinking about the flip side of life lately". He gets depressed, and is vocal about it.

I wish him the best.

As for drawing comparisons between Wreck's board and this one – that's not fair to either board. I was happy there, and I'm happy here.

[Fett]

According to TV.com, "Fight Flub"

[Fett]

I've spent the last couple of hours trying to dl it. Anyone know where to get it? Emule will take forever.

[Fett]

However: Religion is an outdated technology. It has failed to solve the most complicated problems of primitive and modern society, just think of the plague, medical care, sexual complexes or long-distance travel. Instead, modern societies use science. The essence of science is doubt, the main concept of religion is belief. If you rule out doubt, you lose all the benefits of science, especially it's perpetual expansion of knowledge.

This makes the assumption that a) religion predates science and b) science is capable of answering everything. First of all, religion doesn't predate science as in Ancient Egypt, art and science and religion were considered the same thing. Science and religion are not in conflict, except when people use science as a debunking of the sacred (granted, certain creation myths are disproven, but this wholly different to the refuting of divinity). Secondly, science is not capable of answering everything as it concerns itself with the physical world. As a result, it cannot discuss other aspects such as spirituality, art, or the sacred. For example, I could discuss DCM's Tetsuko purely on spelling and grammar, but this would give me no indication of whether or not this is a good story or well drawn. If you wish to discuss the sacred, the religious, you must discuss it on those terms, and not on other terms and claim other terms of discussion do not exist. Modern scientific thought is based after all, on Descartes who got the idea to measure nature while tripping on magic mushrooms and he had a vision in which an angel told him this. Science, like religion, is a tool (as you say) of thought. Like any tool of thought, or belief system, it has its beautiful sides – the joy of discovery, unearthing mysteries, curing disease, increasing quality of life – and it has it's darker sides – control through addiction, calcifying the human spirit, debunking imagination, weapons of war, pollution. This is also true of social doctrines such as communism, capitalism, and so forth. Generally most people understand the rules and strive to improve themselves against it. Others, a minority, will try to alter those rules so that apply not to themselves, and only others. But if cunts fuck it up, it's not the tool's fault. It does only as it is told.

PS: As many have said, it would be better if the news channels brought positive information about the area once in a while. Maybe something about the reduction of infant death or about a NGO success. Why not? It's still news.

Well, that ain't sexy. Seriously, this is why I don't watch the news anymore. You just don't learn anything important except how we might die in 20 years if I don't buy this commercial brand name product.

Just watch the movie "Three Kings" and any bias you might have developed against muslims will pretty much be washed away after watching that movie.

Yeah, but you end up with a real bias and desire to punch the writer of the film.  😛

If I remember correctly, in Islam, the prophet Mohammed is forbidden to be depicted in any way.  This was because, in Islam (as in Christianity), idol worship is forbidden.  Only Allah is to be worshipped (not Mohammed).

It's one of the 10 commandments – no graven images. In fact, Jesus is not allowed to be depicted at all. He was presented on a crucifix for the first time to the pope in 800ad from a monk. It's that depiction that is used today. The idea of Jesus being the Son of God but not actually God is a kind of 'loop hole' (for lack of a better term) into having a graven image of God, but one that isn't blasphemous or 'really' God. Now, it's not 'evil' or 'immoral' to have a Jesus statue, but you're not meant to. And perhaps one of the reasons is to specifically prevent the ridiculing of such a great man.

The Danish cartoonist either: a) was ignorant of the fact that depicting the prophet Mohammed is offensive to muslims or b) was quite aware that depicting the prophet Mohamed is offensive to muslims. I'm not sure which would be worse.

I'm pretty sure he just thought it was funny. I've not even seen the damn thing. I saw a French cartoon with God saying, "Don't worry Mohammed (points at Jesus and Buddha), we've all been caricatured" and I thought it was quite funny. I also found the depiction of Mohammed in South Park funny too.

It would be like a cartoonist depicting Jesus as a gun-toting mass-murderer & continuing to publish such cartoons even after outraged christians protest them.

Or say, depicting Jesus as a homosexual. I remember when that happened. I was disgusted at the condescending way people talked to the 'Bible bashers'.

If it's your right to say something, then it's another's to be offended. An apology should be all that's required from both sides. The fact that people go on about it, is shameful. Let it go. It's a cartoon. The only reason this is playing up is because there hasn't been a bomb go off that someone can blame on Al-Qaeda in months, and the media and government is worried we might be remembering that there was a bunch of social ills prior to 9/11 that didn't involve terrorism.

It's a circus. I suggest we get off our marble seats and leave the colliseum and tell those in charge, "We'll come back when you have something worthwhile for us to see."

[Fett]

I'm pretty much an absolutist when it comes to freedom of expression: with the exception of child pr0n

Sorry, you can't be in favour of freedom for expression, but only of things you find tolerable. Granted, you may make one exception, but it's no different from someone else stating that they find these cartoons, or nazi writing, or religion in general, the 'exception' to the rule. It's hypocritical.

The people here who are "to blame" for this situation are those who feel that their offense is sufficient justification for killing the cartoonists, burning down the newspapers' offices, or kidnapping the citizens of the countries wherein those newspapers are located.

Oh, these people were pissed off long before the cartoon. It's not justification. It's an excuse for crappy behaviour.

I'm deeply disappointed that an editor at a French newspaper was fired for authorizing their publication.

I agree.

One observation, though: When Muslims are offended by material that criticizes or denigrates their religion, the response of the culture seems to be to grovel on its knees and say "Oh! We are sorry! please forgive us for hurting your feelings!" When Christians are offended by material that criticizes or denigrates their religion, the response of the culture seems to be "Shut the fuck up and go away!"

Exactly. It's hardly fair is it? But to be honest, Christianity is a very commonplace cultural artifact within Europe and America, while Islam is something very new. It's not surprising that they would garner different reactions, much like when races first intermingle. But I agree; when someone creates these images, if a significant group of people demand an apology, one should be given (no bannings, firings, censorship – just an apology). That's that. If those same people continue after the apology, I think the only fair response is to tell them, "Shut the fuck up and go away!"

Is that because there actually is (as many conservatives charge) a "culture war" being waged against Christianity and other "traditional values"? Or is it because when Christians are offended, they can pretty much only splutter ineffectually (articles in conservative journals and blogs, and calls for the offensive art to be removed or the artist's government subsidy canceled), whereas a Muslim who gets offended is likely to pick up an AK-47 or a bomb belt and try to kill the offending parties (and if some innocents happen to die as well, hey, that's "bonus points!" they were just infidels anyway!)?

I dunno, Christians can be pretty persuasive. Like in the Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. Lynch mobs. IRA terrorism. Political lobbying to prevent the distrubtion of AIDS vaccines to African countries unless they abolish abortions. Then there's of course all the horrific violence within Christianity between its different sects.

But then, I assume those people are the extremist minorities of that religious community, and not the norm. Something I'd hope would be reciprocated to other religious communities.

(And if anyone is offended by my characterization of Muslims, let me suggest that your offense is misplaced: your offense should be directed at those Muslims who are giving the religion a bad name by exactly these actions.

That's bull. "I'm perpetuating the stereotyping of an entire people, but it's their fault." It's bull and you know it, because whenever mainstream television depicts the woman bodybuilder as a testosterone man-bitch, you rant about how unfair the stereotyping is.

If Islam truly is a "religion of peace", as President Bush said shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, then why is there not more being done within Islam to censure amd marginalize those who call for violence and murder? Why is Islam content to let its image be portrayed by, among others, the slimeball goon who murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for making a film critical of Muslim attitudes toward, and treatment, of women?)

Are you crazy? That's like me pointing the finger at you and claiming why you haven't personally stopped gun crime in the US.

The vast majority of Muslims state that those terrorists are not true Muslims. Even in this current debate, the news over here shows one Muslim representative after another saying that they found the image offensive but that the situation is being riled up by extremists. They don't think the cartoon is a big deal. They say so repeatedly. What makes you think that there is nothing being done within Islamic communities to not only stop terrorism, but the portrayal of terrorists? Of course they are. And you can't say, "Everyone should be allowed to say 'Muslims are terrorists'" then say "Why doesn't Islam do more to prevent the depiction of their religious members as terrorists?" The only actions you seem to pay attention to are the horrifically violent ones shown on the television, those which support the stereotype of the muslim terrorist, and not the actions of the public speakers who decry terrorism, the politicians who try to show how Islamic law could potentially help in areas such as finance and eductation, or the simple day to day attitude of being appropriate to their fellow man. Many Muslims feel marginalized into an apologetic role within society due to terrorist attacks, when they personally, have no relationship to the attack. Why must any Muslim depcition be in relation to terrorism (pro or anti)? Surely those Muslims who live their lives totally absent of terrorism send the strongest image of Islam.

It's horrifically offensive to act as though all Muslims are just terrorists waiting to happen. You'd be offended if, because you're American, people thought you'd just go 'crazy' and pull a gun out and start shooting them. Or because your Christian you'd start to burn people at the stake for being of different race, religion, or sexuality to yourself.

You want to be pissed off with Islamic extremists who think a cartoon is worth killing over? Join the club, and you can get behind me. But don't get pissed off with an entire population of humanity just because they happen to share the same zip code.

[Fett]

At no point did I think you though this was a bad thing. 😛

[Author]

Posts