here is the link, its locked by the way beware of the quasi-fascists that are the western europeans
edit: its really easy to attract the islamophobes in this chat
here is the link, its locked by the way beware of the quasi-fascists that are the western europeans
edit: its really easy to attract the islamophobes in this chat
How common is wearing red? How common is drawing a picture of Muhammad?
The reasonableness of the request is in large part determined by how burdensome it is to fulfill.
The teacher who was beheaded did not draw the prophet. The elderly woman and man who were beheaded in the church in Nice did not draw the prophet.
Note that a few comments up I've already said killing someone over this is wrong. No one is arguing that people should get the death penalty for drawing Muhammad. The argument is that you're a huge asshole if you do, because there's no reason to do it besides pissing people off.
its not about whether the request is reasonable, its about whether you're an asshole or racist or whatever for refusing. and it is very very easy for you to never wear red again in your life, so surely just not wearing red for one day of the week is not that unreasonable?
if not wearing red on tuesdays were a muslim tradition, you absolutely would be calling me out the exact same way for saying i dont intend to follow that tradition
But I wear red plenty now, so it would at least be somewhat of a burden to remember not to wear red on Tuesdays. It's not a burden at all to not draw Muhammed because I never draw him anyway.
It's the going out of one's way to be as offensive as possible that makes this asshole behavior. No one's ordinary routine is being disrupted, no one's being even slightly inconvenienced.
What if you never wear red but, upon being told you're racist if you wear red on tuesdays, you decide to start wearing red on tuesdays? Does this circularly make you racist?
People don't like being told not to do harmless things because of other people's religious or personal beliefs and will often do those things as a result of being told not to do them because, again, they are harmless things that should not be stigmatized. Drawing pictures of any human who has ever lived or will ever live is a harmless activity which should not get you called racist or an asshole. It doesn't matter if this is just one guy and you could draw any of the other guys who have ever lived, there is no reason not to draw him.
If I never did something -- let's call it drawing a picture of Muhammad -- but I started doing it specifically to piss off a group of people my country has demonized and killed by the millions, yes, I would be an enormous piece of shit.
How have Chechens been demonized and killed by France? A country explicitly supporting them and their most reactionary elements in their struggles against Russia.
You're intentionally omitting the religious aspect here, which is the whole point.
ok, so say someone wears red on a tuesday and i fucking brutally murder them for it
its their fault, right?
No, and I already gave you this scenario and this answer in this same thread. You're just being argumentative at this point.
Log the fuck off for a bit
The going out of your way argument is good in principle but we're not talking here about a dude just drawing pictures of Muhammad and running around shoving it into random people's faces, are we? It was a teacher, showing the cartoons (that he himself didn't draw) from a well known (even if in very bad taste) magazine in his ethics class as part of a discourse on religious tolerance, censorship, personal freedom. We don't even fucking know his personal stance on the caricatures. On top of that, he got beheaded by a guy from Chechnya, a republic that has never in its history been subject to French colonialism. A republic that has social mores and is ruled in pretty much the same way as Salafist Saudi Arabia. So no, this here is not the hill leftists should die defending because it has zero relevance to the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of Muslims.
No one is arguing that killing someone over this is OK.
The "it's for class" reasoning doesn't hold much water either. We learn about all sorts of things we shouldn't do without needing to see an example of them, and it's not as if a picture of a person is such a difficult concept to grasp that it requires examples.
It holds all the water because context matters. I also don't know what to tell you if you think the purpose of such a class is "to show what a historical figure looks like". Tell me though, would you also ban showing historical photos of banners with the swastika in a history lesson about Nazis because displaying it would hurt the sensibilities of Jewish pupils present and one could describe a swastika by saying it's a black cross with perpendicular lines at each end? Would you ban the virulently racist attitudes, expletives and slave beatings in a film about slavery? This shit comes too close for comfort to lib performative idpol with its deliberate dismissal of context.