Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <20060205215516.52156.qmail &AElig web81912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602051704040.7275 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <20060205215516.52156.qmail &AElig web81912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:22:05 -0500 (EST)
To: "Erica O'Connor" <luca2032 &AElig yahoo.com>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: view the infamous cartoons, support free speech, buy legos
Status: RO

James's email expresses well my own rationale for posting the cartoons in 
the first place.  I just updated the preamble to be more clear on this; 
thanks for prompting me on that!

And there was also my annoyance at having such a hard time finding them 
due to self-censorship of american media.  So it was kind of a free access 
to information service.

The other part of my thinking was that if people are burning down 
embassies because they don't want these cartoons printed, we should help 
ensure the tactic of violence backfires and causes further dissemination 
of the cartoons.  But thanks to Uluc especially I'm having second thoughts 
about that line of reasoning.

Oh, and Erica's partially right, I do see *fundamentalist* religion as the 
root of the problem here.

Thanks everyone for the enthusiastic responses!
Danny


--- \/   FROM Erica O'Connor AT 06.02.05 13:55 (Today)   \/ ---

> Daniel, James's email is NOT a rationale for your
> cartoons.  Nothing of the sort.  I'm pretty sure he
> would object to this interpretation.  You REALLY need
> to read people's emails more closely.   I also find it
> ironic that you demand others learn about what you
> deem to be the "true context" of this debate before
> they dare have an opinion on this when you didn't
> bother to do so in the first place.
> Also recognize two additional things.  One, the Danish
> paper has already apologized for the cartoons because
> they were insensitive to all Muslims (not just the
> fundamentalists who insist on de-secularizing the rest
> of the world).  Two, the Danish government never even
> considered acting against the newspaper or the
> editors, thus, as I said before, no infringement of
> the civil liberty of free speech occurred, or was even
> in danger of occurring in this instance.  If the
> Danish government had in fact capitulated to Islamist
> demands, then I can see the sense in protesting this
> by linking to the cartoons.
> Certainly there are broader issues of political
> correctness that we can discuss within the context of
> debate *about* freedom of expression, its uses and
> possible restrictions.  However, slippery slope
> arguments are practically categorically flawed.  They
> are almost always employed as a last-ditch effort to
> squeeze out a stronger conclusion than what weak
> premises actually allow.  This case is no exception.
> Refraining from depicting Mohamed for the sake of
> common decency and respect doesn't mean that Islam
> should be immune from satirizing.  And it certainly
> doesn't indicate any danger that a free society would
> restrict women's rights simply to please Muslims (we
> do that for our own reasons) or anything else of that
> nature.
> Furthermore, picturing Muslims as terrorists is not a
> new, startlingly brazen idea that desperately needs
> exposure; rather, it is a tired stereotype which has
> done a lot of damage to Innocent, freedom-loving
> Muslims in this country.  I'm disappointed that you
> would gleefully perpetuate this here (no doubt for the
> purposes of your personal vendetta against religion)
> when it clearly makes no gains for free speech or for
> the virtue of tolerance.
> -Erica
>
>
>
> --- Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu> wrote:
>
>> I disagree, Uluc:  there were several
>> world-improving conclusions from the
>> feminist debate, listed under "things we can do" on
>> the itw whiteboard.
>>
>> In that spirit, let's make such a list for the
>> problem of Islamism (nb:
>> not the problem of Islam -- and, btw, no one's
>> allowed an opinion on any
>> of this till you read James's email which lays out
>> the real context of
>> this debate).
>>
>> I'd love to hear more thoughts from you especially
>> Uluc, since you live
>> in a theoretically open, secular, muslim society.
>>
>> Here's the list so far:
>>
>>
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld
>>
>> Also, I added a rationale (ie, James's email) to the
>> directory of images
>> and am resetting the vote in light of that.
>>
>>
>> --- \/   FROM Uluc Saranli AT 06.02.05 10:27 (Today)
>>   \/ ---
>>
>>> Well, realistically, I don't think doing it this
>> way will go very far in
>>> improving the world.
>>>
>>> My reaction to this will not be from a religious
>> standpoint, but a
>>> psychological one. As some of you know, I am by no
>> means a religious person
>>> (despite the *very* useful indication of "Islam"
>> as my religion on my Turkish
>>> ID :)) so I don't personally care any depictions
>> of any prohet in any way.
>>>
>>> Back to my take on this. The worst way to convince
>> somebody on a topic is to
>>> spit on their face, tell them their mother is a
>> bad woman and start loudly
>>> calling them names. Except a few people who are
>> exceptionally mature and
>>> calm, this will almost surely get you some sort of
>> physically or verbally
>>> violent reaction in response. Don't get me wrong,
>> I am not trying to justify
>>> any of the bombings or the obviously stupid
>> reaction of the muslims, but as
>>> the "defenders of all things good", I would think
>> the west could have been a
>>> bit more knowledgeable about basic human nature.
>>>
>>> To me, this whole episode about cartoons seriously
>> feels like a
>>> primary-school kid fight than an intelligent
>> exchange about free-speech or
>>> religious rights or any meaningful topic. And this
>> partially includes your
>>> excited posting of the cartoons on your web page,
>> Dan. This is not to say
>>> that censoring is ok and we 5A5Ashould be
>> intimidated by terrorist actions.
>>> So, in that sense, it's great you can, and did
>> post them up. However, from a
>>> practical perspective, this will achieve very
>> little to further our cause of
>>> improving the world since it is an action which
>> conveniently ignores the
>>> personalities of the very people you are hoping to
>> change.
>>>
>>> You can either get all worked up about the Muslim
>> reaction to this and take
>>> silly actions in the name of free-speech to
>> infuriate them further, or you
>>> can sit down and think of constructive ways of
>> inducing change. Constructive
>>> criticism and creative solutions to dealing with
>> immature idiots are very
>>> hard to construct. It saddens me that we, as
>> people who claim to know how to
>>> improve this world, cannot go beyond participating
>> in the cat-fight.
>>>
>>> Your discussions on radical/constructive feminism
>> was not conclusive on this
>>> either, so I don't expect there to be consensus
>> this time around. So, bring
>>> on the flame! (you can call me names, it's ok :))
>>>
>>> - Uluc.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>> And by the way, I'm completely serious about
>> this. I think this is a way
>>>> that improvetheworld can literally improve the
>> world.
>>>>
>>>> Also, please don't be shy about chiming in on
>> this.  Once the first message
>>>> is sent it's really no more burden for people to
>> delete the whole thread
>>>> (as long as you leave the subject line intact).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (PS, I can see from the web logs that lots of you
>> have viewed the pictures
>>>> already so don't pretend you're not listening! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- \/   FROM Daniel Reeves AT 06.02.04 17:03
>> (Today)   \/ ---
>>>>
>>>>> A Danish newspaper recently published cartoons
>> depicting Mohammed and
>>>>> muslims as terrorists.  Muslims are up in arms
>> about it.  In fact, they've
>>>>> burnt down the Danish and Norwegian embassies in
>> Syria, as a start.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all over the news but no US newspaper has
>> the backbone to print the
>>>>> cartoons.  I guess terrorism works. So this is
>> an opportunity to fight for
>>>>> free speech by helping make sure the agenda of
>> the radical religious right
>>>>> backfires.  And so, improvetheworld brings you:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/itw/mohammed
>>>>>    (or google improvetheworld)
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and since muslims are calling for boycotts
>> of Danish products in
>>>>> response to those cartoons, you should also buy
>> more Danish stuff.  Like
>>>>> Legos.
>>>>>
>>>>> <ducking>,
>>>>> Danny
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -
>> search://"Daniel Reeves"
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -
>> search://"Daniel Reeves"
>>
>> "I have enough money to last me the rest of my life,
>> unless I
>> buy something." -- Jackie Mason
>>
>>
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"Having children is hereditary: If your parents didn't have any,
then you probably won't either."