Understood, but I disagree.

Post #398,083 by Another Scott 1/14/15 2:51:08 PM Reply	Understood, but I disagree. It doesn't look like the NY Times showed "piss Christ". And they didn't show Donohue's response with an Obama doll - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/arts/art-shock.html?_r=0#/#finale Anyone can find the Charlie Hebdo cover (or "piss Christ") if they want. It doesn't need to be everywhere for people to support their right to publish offensive material. Similarly, the magic hex string of characters that had to do with some sort of key to a notorious DRM - anyone could find it if they wanted. It doesn't mean that everyone needs to put it in their .sig. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #398,084 by drook 1/14/15 3:28:24 PM Reply	Hmm ... this is interesting Terrorists depend on publicity to spread fear. "Lone gunman"-types sometimes do it specifically to become famous. Shock art sometimes shocks purely as "click bait". In all these cases, displaying the shocking thing may be giving someone exactly what they want. I wouldn't want our media to be so easily manipulated. See "Black Mirror - The National Anthem" for a perfect example of where that leads. In this case I would still have run the picture, because the story was about the violent reaction. I would not have run the picture if the story were, "Here is a magazine trying to offend Muslims." -- Drew
Post #398,085 by Another Scott 1/14/15 3:51:35 PM Reply	Yup. One of the things that seems to infuriate the Right about Obama is that he doesn't "let his Luther out". We all know that little kids do lots of bad things for attention, also too. If the Charlie Hebdo cover were pulled from Google and the rest of the Internet, then publishing it everywhere would make sense. We'd be fighting censorship on our end, too. As it is, publishing the cover on American papers and blogs doesn't really affect anything in a positive way. It's not going to make ISIL or AQAP change their behavior. (Just like Sullivan changing his blog color to green didn't change anything in Iran's protest.) But it might make the situation worse (e.g. by feeding into skin-heads tendencies). Sometimes not doing something is the best response. Cheers, Scott.
Post #398,089 by mmoffitt 1/14/15 4:46:07 PM Reply	Re: It's not going to make ISIL or AQAP change their behavior. No. But it would let them know that we haven't changed ours.
Post #398,091 by pwhysall 1/14/15 5:10:05 PM Reply	Re: Understood, but I disagree. No-one died for Piss Christ. Twelve people died for the Charlie Hebdo cover. It's craven and cowardly to take the advert hits and sales that will come as a result of publishing the Charlie Hebdo story without publishing what the actual fuck those twelve people died for.
Post #398,096 by Ashton 1/15/15 3:33:57 AM Reply	Yes, seems quite the ostrich position: both vulgar and vulnerable.
Post #398,098 by Another Scott 1/15/15 12:37:13 PM Reply	Yeahbut... We've been talking about "the cover" - the reason cited for the attack was "disrespecting the prophet" and the like. It wasn't one particular cartoon, AFAIK, though I haven't checked carefully... Charlie Hebdo apparently republished the Dutch cartoons in 2006 and the firebombing was in 2011. They've been a target of the violent kooks for a long time. 12 people died there because they were shot-up by deranged gunmen who used religion as a reason. We shouldn't necessarily take their proclaimations as the truth, though. Perhaps they are looking for ratcheting up of laws against Muslims in France and the EU that they can point to as "western attacks on Islam" and thereby increase recruitment. Thus feeding into their desire to make this a religious conflict will help their aims.... The post-attack cover was certainly newsworthy, but I don't see not publishing it as being cowardly or selling out or something. There were were reasonable reasons not to, and it was easily available elsewhere. I doubt that the NY Times's traffic changed much as a result of their reporting. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #398,103 by pwhysall 1/15/15 2:40:53 PM Reply	You're reaching and you know it :)
Post #418,015 by CRConrad 5/4/17 7:09:15 PM 5/4/17 7:09:15 PM Reply	Danish, not Dutch.

Welcome to IWETHEY!