The ethical lines between acceptable and non-acceptable are pretty obvious to anyone with a sense of empathy, IMO. Is it a context in which you can comfortably adopt an item of religious significance infront of members of that community and both you and they would feel comfortable with you doing so? (Such as, for example, when Sikhs sometimes have a booth set up on Canada Day where they show you how to tie and wear a turban and will discuss its significance in their culture and religion with you.)
Would this person in the parade do so if there were Sikhs who are prominent members of his community? Would he be comfortable doing this outside a Sikh temple in Calgary and interacting with Sikhs who see him there? Would Sikhs, after hearing his explanation for dressing up in this way, accept that explanation? If the answer to any of those questions are no, then it's not okay.
I'm not saying that it should be viewed as a hate crime or be made illegal to do so, but I am saying that being socially castigated for doing so is a valid and deserved outcome.
Thanks, this is a great answer and I agree with your take on the situation. Seeing the imbecilic comments from the organizer makes me think that there was a mean-spirited racial undertone to this that is not acceptable.
Also, thanks for communicating your answer without resorting to personal insults. This is how a discussion forum should function!
The ethical lines between acceptable and non-acceptable are pretty obvious to anyone with a sense of empathy, IMO. Is it a context in which you can comfortably adopt an item of religious significance infront of members of that community and both you and they would feel comfortable with you doing so? (Such as, for example, when Sikhs sometimes have a booth set up on Canada Day where they show you how to tie and wear a turban and will discuss its significance in their culture and religion with you.)
The Charlie Hedbo shootings were less then a decade ago. The likely motive for that attack was the magazine's cartoons depicting and joking about Muhammad. Is that something that should never be allowed anymore in the West, or do freedom of speech allow it despite it being not just distasteful but potentially heretical to some adherents of Islam.
Thanks, this is a great answer and I agree with your take on the situation. Seeing the imbecilic comments from the organizer makes me think that there was a mean-spirited racial undertone to this that is not acceptable.
Also, thanks for communicating your answer without resorting to personal insults. This is how a discussion forum should function!
You literally needed multiple people to paint you a picture and describe over multiple posts in detail why an obviously racist message was racist, yet your feelings were hurt from what you perceived to be personal insults.
haha, that's awesome. Like, you couldn't understand without us explaining it to you like you were five why the imagery used in the Hicktown Parade was racist, but the real injustice in all this was the tone we took in the forum. I love it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
I'm not the intended audience, but yeah it's funny to have a manure spreader with a politician riding on it. It really doesn't matter which politician, it's funny to me.
In which case why not use a cardboard cut out?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheIronMaiden For This Useful Post:
The Charlie Hedbo shootings were less then a decade ago. The likely motive for that attack was the magazine's cartoons depicting and joking about Muhammad. Is that something that should never be allowed anymore in the West, or do freedom of speech allow it despite it being not just distasteful but potentially heretical to some adherents of Islam.
Yes - don't do it. The only reason to do it is to be edgy.
And just to save someone the trouble - the attacks on Charlie Hedbo were terrible and shouldn't have been done.
Thanks, this is a great answer and I agree with your take on the situation. Seeing the imbecilic comments from the organizer makes me think that there was a mean-spirited racial undertone to this that is not acceptable.
Also, thanks for communicating your answer without resorting to personal insults. This is how a discussion forum should function!
FWIW, Sliver gave you the Coles notes version of this exact same answer (twice) and you ignored him and then accused him of throwing a personal dig when he was surprised you didn't understand.
A discussion goes two ways. You have to be open to it. It's silly when you ignore people and accuse them of deflection and then go on to wax poetic about how a discussion forum should function.
Food for thought anyway.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The Charlie Hedbo shootings were less then a decade ago. The likely motive for that attack was the magazine's cartoons depicting and joking about Muhammad. Is that something that should never be allowed anymore in the West, or do freedom of speech allow it despite it being not just distasteful but potentially heretical to some adherents of Islam.
First, let's separate the action from the reaction. The reaction was absolutely despicable and morally reprehensible to the most extreme imaginable degree. The action did not in any way deserve the sort of reaction.
But that doesn't mean that it deserved no reaction.
Would the appropriate result be some degree of social condemnation of Charlie Hedbo for publishing something that they knew was going to be highly offensive to a large number of people? Yeah, I think it probably would have been, and moreso I think that's a reaction that the publishers would have accepted and even welcomed as something that would further the debate they wanted to have about some problematic elements of Islamic fundamentalism in a western society. So absolutely those cartoons should be legally allowed (as they were, and as this parade float was), but so too should people be allowed to vociferously denounce them within the constraints of the law.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Yeah, that would've been fine. I feel like this guy (or the guys putting it together) were more nefarious, but I'm not really sure that the message was racist. People have done caricatures of politicians forever, and those are always involving telling characteristics.
If you looks at Zarley's posting style, he knows this is a bad idea, he's just being obtuse and difficult to stick it to posters he doesn't politically agree with. Most rational people can immediately see the problem without needing an explanation.
If you looks at Zarley's posting style, he knows this is a bad idea, he's just being obtuse and difficult to stick it to posters he doesn't politically agree with. Most rational people can immediately see the problem without needing an explanation.
Not really, just trying to provoke some interesting discussion on a bit of a taboo subject. Isn't that the whole point of a discussion forum?
Not really, just trying to provoke some interesting discussion on a bit of a taboo subject. Isn't that the whole point of a discussion forum?
So you're saying you knew it was racist all along and you were just trolling?
Other than not believing you, that's also not the point of a discussion board.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
Zarley, further to your comment about 22 minutes and the political cartoon. I think these are actually important distinctions. It's all about context. Personally, I think both of these are over the line, but again the context of both of these depictions isn't to deligitimize the culture or person. Using caricature as an example, the exagerated features have always been a slight contention point, but they are largely dolled out pretty evenly. Just look at a caricature of the british royal family for example, you could see the nose from a different planet. Satire itself, generally where 22 minutes finds itself, also creates it's own cover for this. The Satire is poking fun at itself generally, and the larger commentary of the satire is usually a completely different element than the zany parts, so there's more flexibility. That said, I think both of these instances are toeing that line pretty hard. BUT, both are so far away from the parade example that it's pretty disingenuous to compare them.
The Following User Says Thank You to Monahammer For This Useful Post:
I'm not the intended audience, but yeah it's funny to have a manure spreader with a politician riding on it. It really doesn't matter which politician, it's funny to me.
This is actually the most offensive thing in the thread, I expect one or two people to not understand casual racism but the fact you'd find this funny is truly offensive.
I'm damn near 40 and I can't imagine this being chuckle worth even in my 70s. Are you 80?
