South Park's Episode 201 — the Expurgated Version 1224
Yesterday we mentioned the controversy facing Matt Stone and Trey Parker after last week's South Park (episode 200) depicted Muhammad, founder of Islam, concealed in a bear suit.
Today, penguinman1337 writes "Apparently, all is not well over at Comedy Central. The heavily censored version of episode 201 that aired last night has a lot of people angry, including the show's creators." From their note: "In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps."
I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
onto BitTorrent.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Informative)
You realize, the original episode that showed Mohammed before it wasn't cool to show Mohommed is on their website? here it is [southparkstudios.com]. Completely un-editied.
I'm expecting the 201/202 episodes to be posted the same way.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:4, Interesting)
after last weeks and before this weeks episode you could play it. That sucks ass.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Bunch of cowards running things at Comedy Central administration. They clearly didn't learn the lesson of the Cartoon Wars episodes, every time you give in to bullies, you only embolden them to ask for more next time. So ironic to have South Parks' own network so clearly demonstrate the head-in-the-sand behavior which is being protested.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Bunch of cowards running things at Comedy Central administration. They clearly didn't learn the lesson of the Cartoon Wars episodes, every time you give in to bullies, you only embolden them to ask for more next time.
Sounds like what's needed is for someone to threaten them unless they take the beeps out.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:4, Insightful)
In order to do that someone will have to start a new religion based on South Park.
What about a religion based on freedom of speech?
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
You could play it earlier today. I rewatched it this morning. By this afternoon, it was gone.
Scary times, and even scarier when people like those at Comedy Central are determined to prove their cowardice to the world.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Funny)
But they showed that episode in July 2001, and the attacks were in September 2001.
So South Park caused the 9/11 attacks.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
For those of you that are unaware, the concern among Muslims about depicting Muhammad is based on a few hadith that warn against doing so to prevent idolatry. The worry is that any depiction could become the focus of worship, and the depiction itself could take the place of what it represents.
Or, in other words, radical Muslims are fearful that a large faction of the faithful will splinter off and form a new denomination based on the worship of an episode of South Park. They're so anxious over this possibility, these groups have threatened to suborn the murder of Matt Stone & Trey Parker by dispatching roving death squads.
Don't click away to a calendar app—I assure you, it is 2010 and this is actually happening. (And I understand why some of you with mod points might choose "Funny" for this post, which is totally fine, but I promise everyone that this is as unbiased an accounting of the facts as I find myself able to give.)
By the way, if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post, I have one question for you: shouldn't your first problem, before Matt & Trey, be with the second most populous denomination of Islam, the Shi'a, who apparently have no problem with depictions of Muhammad? Is it off-base for me to ask that you sort this out amongst yourselves before requiring the non-believers to follow your religious edicts under threat of death?
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Funny)
By the way, if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post
Sorry, the techno-savvy hard-line Muslim can't come to the phone right now. He's out to lunch with the gadget-hoarding Amish electrical engineer.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Informative)
the fucking crazy thing is (Score:5, Informative)
The guy in the bear suit wasn't even Muhammed. As became clear in episode 201, it was fucking Santa Claus. So these idiots who posted the threat on the website were essentially upset because Santa Claus was represented in a bear suit that a bunch of redheads had been tricked into believing was Muhammed. Just wrong on so many levels.
And by the way, the idiots who posted the threat really are just idiots posting on a website, not representative even of jihadist Muslims much less of mainstream or even "hardline" Muslims.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:4, Interesting)
By the way, if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post, I have one question for you: shouldn't your first problem, before Matt & Trey, be with the second most populous denomination of Islam, the Shi'a, who apparently have no problem with depictions of Muhammad? Is it off-base for me to ask that you sort this out amongst yourselves before requiring the non-believers to follow your religious edicts under threat of death?
FYI - Shia represent 10%~15% of the ~1.5 billion muslims.
And considering that they've been killing one another since the Sunni-Shia split in the 7th Century,
I think it's fair to say that they've been busy sorting this out for the better part of 1,400 years.
That aside, your question is a rhetorical flourish and completely devoid of substance.
Do we ever tell the Pope to STFU because he disagrees with some other Christian Church 1/10th their size?
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the current conflict in Iraq...brainwashed by Western media...
This is the part where you are supposed to provide informative links to support your contention, and set us all free of this indoctrinated delusion perpetrated by Western media that the shia/sunni conflict started prior to 2003.
Proceed.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
There were some dead people who would probably have liked to still be able to disagree with you.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Christians do have the advantage in the "whose religion is inherently violent" mudslinging match that nobody was killed in Jesus name while Jesus was alive, or while any of his students were alive, or their students, or their students, or their students, or their students. It took several HUNDRED YEARS for people to start killing in Jesus name. Why? Because Jesus made it very clear you were not supposed to kill in his name, even to the point of literally turning your other cheek to somebody who was slapping you in the face. It was not until Christianity became the dominant regional religion and rulers began looking for justifications for political wars and capital punishment that killings began, and then continued in force for ~1300 years, largely until the enlightenment pulled out a lot of dusty verses.
Muhammad, on the other hand, personally led the Muslim armies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Beginning_of_armed_conflict [wikipedia.org]
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Informative)
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you live in the middle of the fucking desert a couple of thousand years ago.
You are (by accident of birth) quite high in your society's hierarchy - but a lot of things that we take for granted these days simply don't exist in the middle of this fucking desert.
There's no police force.
There's no farm subsidies (though there are farmers, it's a hard life being a farmer in the middle of a fucking desert).
The last couple of years have been tough - there's virtually no water (though the people in the next country have a number of rivers...). As a consequence, many of your people are starving.
There may or may not be such a thing as conscription, but keeping morale up in your army is damn hard. You can barely feed them, FFS.
There is precious little that would be recognised as a legal system two thousand years hence.
There's no international aid - it's every man for himself.
There's little education - those who aren't from a wealthy background (which 99% of your countrymen aren't) don't necessarily understand exactly how bad things are or how best to improve them.
What your people need to survive is some better farmland. And you know exactly what you need to get it - water. Easiest way to get this is to re-settle as many people as you can next to the neighbour's river. Your neighbour is likely to object, however, so you'll have to take it by force. How on Earth do persuade thousands of people to take up arms and invade your neighbour?
Well, like most leaders you're fundamentally a politician. Two thousand years from now you'd spin your people some line about how this neighbouring country has big scary weapons, but that doesn't work so well here because nuclear weapons aren't going to be invented for some time.
The most powerful thing you have available is your own local myths and legends - which include legends about how the world was created by an all-powerful being. Most of your people believe pretty firmly in them. So you spin them a line about how this all-powerful being has promised them the world - on condition they take on any "non-believers". And by an amazing coincidence, there's a whole bunch of non-believers in the next country.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Where does this "right" come from?
From the Creator. The creator who creates love in peoples hearts. Why should the institutions and creations of man take precedence over the creators work? Same sex relationships are seen throughout nature. Yet in man, institutions that have turned their face away from God call this "sinful". It is those institutions that violate the sanctity of life and love in God's eyes.
It is a man-made "church" that proclaims right and wrong and claims to speak for God -- yet their words go against the habits of creatures on this earth -- it pretty obvious that they are "unnatural" -- a perversion of the natural order God established. Let each be attracted to who they will and be in alignment with God's blessings.
If it's politically correct to say it or not the fact remains that homosexuality differs from the norm and is, biologically speaking, of no use to furthering the human species.
It doesn't need to be furthered -- it needs to be nurtured. Men on the make ain't doing alot of nuturing any time I've seen. Once married, maybe, Male couples can nuture as well -- when love flourishes -- as it does among female couples. IT's not as easy for male couples but it's relatively easy for for female couples to reproduce -- and with science, with each others genes!
But that's not really the point of love. It's about loving and giving to another, love without an agenda -- a type of love that heterosexual couples find it harder to experience.
It is an inherrently selfish pursuit that leaves the notion of service to your fellow man (make jokes about that if you like!) completely out of the picture.
Not having children and devoting your life to science and art is selfish? Not having children is selfish? How about men who have to spread their seed into an over populated world who disproportionally will be the ones to leave their partner to raise a child alone? Who's selfish here? Statistically, it's the men who walk. You can be sure that gay couples won't be so selfish as to use impregnation as a way of enslavement or blithely leave behind single parents or children on the street.
Statistics and reality don't backup your claims of selfishness. Caring first for themselves and their partners is doing the earth alot more good than those who are polluting the world with more uncared for and uncherished children (not that all are, but a sizable percentage of your supposedly "not selfish" net parents will produce such a result).
Normalization of homosexuality is foolish as it is (mathematically speaking) not normal.
Mathematically speaking, left handers are not normal. Should we pass laws to stop them from marrying? They might pass on left handed genes...
If you think about it -- if gays do marry, they will be less likely to reproduce than their het counterparts, and genetically, they won't contribute as much to the gene pool -- but if honored and accepted into society, they will help raise the standard of living for today. Since they have no children of their own -- many make great workers in child care -- or would if it wasn't for anti-gay propaganda. By any measure -- absolute or per-capital, more heterosexual males are abusers of children than any other group. NOT gay men. And lesbians? I've heard of a few freak incidents of a woman with lesbian inclinations going over the edge, but those I've who like to be around children are very caring and make ideal child care workers -- they don't have to go home to take care of their own.
Opening recognition for gay couples leaves the floodgates open for polygimous groups and other non-traditional spousal units to get their "rights" recognized.
And??
"It takes a village to raise a child" used to be common sense. Children were better off when groups of adults were around to interact with them. In today's society, having only 2 adults, both of whom are
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect Christianity's new found 'peaceful' resolution came about when governments told them to mind their own business. When they lost the power to sway law in the US and Europe, they in turn had to comply with a slew of new restrictions to what they could and couldn't do. Agree with the parent. Christianity was an extreme force for violence, and could be again. Imagine if religion was allowed to blend with Law in the U.S. Now imagine the more radical folks who tend to push those agenda and the 'ideals' they strive for. I could definitely see that evoking violence, either through resistance or compliance.
In the middle east, Religion and Law or intermixed freely. Look at the violence created by such a mix.
If there is one thing that I think absolutely made things better in the US was a Separation of Church and State.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. Even the "nice" christians somehow find it in their heart to hate homosexuals, and their public stance against their civil rights is no less ugly because it's done with a smug smile.
If you're a religious believer, you've already established yourself as partially insane
It's interesting to me how you manage to both decry tolerance and display an utter lack of it so concisely in one post. Bravo biggot.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see the intolerance there.
Sure, there's an insult, but he's not calling for them to be banned/beheaded/banished or anything.
Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
He's attempting to redefine "tolerance" as "loving acceptance", which is all too common these days.
Knee bone is connected to the... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no knee-jerk but knee-jerk and jerks are its prophets.
Throw their weight around (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, Trey Parker and Matt Stone basically prop up Comedy Central. They only have, what, 3 shows that are really big? The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and South Park. South Park seems to be the top even in that category. Comedy Central needs them more than the other way around. Hell South Park has enough following that it could be profitably distributed as a web series and still make plenty of money from ads and merchandise sales.
Re:Throw their weight around (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you overestimate the current profitability of the online audience... hell, South Park even made fun the difficulty to monetize online success in "Canada on Strike", a relatively recent episode.
Otherwise, I agree with you, those 3 shows carry comedy central. Comedy Central tries to strike out on other good shows but they usually suck, whether cartoons (Drawn Together, Ugly Americans) or shows like Tosh.0.
Hell, reruns of Futurama is their 4th biggest thing, but seeing the same 60 episodes gets old fast... hopefully the new ones will be good.
Re:Throw their weight around (Score:4, Insightful)
If The Simpsons on Hulu can be more profitable [newteevee.com] than on network TV, why would you think South Park wouldn't be able to pull better ad revenues online than on cable?
Give them an inch (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, comedy central has made it clear that in response to death threats, they'll censor themselves. I'm sure that will be the last time religious nuts get their panties in a twist and threaten them with violence because they're angry. After all, religious fundamentalism goes hand in hand with being reasonable.
Wonder if we'll ever see Colbert gagged because some right-wing "hutatree" terrorist realized they were being made fun of...
Re:Give them an inch (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, comedy central has made it clear that in response to death threats, they'll censor themselves.
Someone needs to death threat them into releasing the episode.
Re:Give them an inch (Score:5, Funny)
They won't back down to whacko Christian threats (Score:5, Insightful)
and I am sure Jewish and Hindu would be ignored.
No, they backed down for two reasons. The radical Islamic groups are known to carry out their threats. The current trend in upper American government is to treat these loons with kid gloves all based on this idiot idea if we are nice to them they will be nice to us. The fact is they totally dictate to the media what the media can say. One or more of their kind makes a real threat but others "the supposedly peaceful side" claims that its not what it seems and that the people who dared to say something bad about Islam are the real problem. It works out so well and we read about it daily.
They fear them rightfully so but their reaction is still wrong. The reason this fear and threat can persist is because far too many leaders want to act magnanimous in declaring they will turn the other cheek. This is nothing more than the good old policies of liberal lore where certain races are predisposed to violence, theft, or just need help getting an education because they don't have the ability to do good on their own. Condescending through and through
Yeah damnit (Score:5, Insightful)
. The current trend in upper American government is to treat these loons with kid gloves all based on this idiot idea if we are nice to them they will be nice to us.
You should go over there and bomb them into... Wait, didn't you do that already?
your argument is backwards (Score:5, Informative)
christians do violent things. ok. that implies what? that it is therefore ok that muslims do violent things?
the proper response is that when christians do violent things, we denounce them. and when muslims do violent things, we denounce them
your argument seems to be "because christians do violent things we can't criticize the muslims who do violent things"
bullshit. i condemn both. so stand with me and condemn these violent muslim fundamentalist assholes
Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want this to slip into a "well, Christians have bad people too" thing, South Park makes Jesus Christ a recurring character all the time. The number of protests against those episodes have been relatively limited. No attempts by Christian assassins have been reported on the lives of either Matt Stone nor Trey Parker. The Scientologists pretty much had the biggest tiff against South Park, and even that was more of a huff than a "march in the streets burning things in effigy" thing.
We all know there are bad people in all religions. But the point of this is about humorous depiction, and all religions in the world have had their figures depicted humorously at times. But only one religion seems to put out a death sentence on anyone who does it to their major figure, even though almost no one even knows exactly what he looked like and generally has to be drawn as a crude stereotype with his name pointed at him for anyone to know. Which is also really sad, and I don't mean that in a mocking way, in a lot of ways.
The media really are pussies (Score:5, Insightful)
I am more than a little tired of this crap of "Oh we have to be culturally sensitive towards the Muslims." No, we don't. We don't need to be culturally sensitive to anyone. I liked Philip Pullman's talk about this general idea when he said "No one has the right to live without being shocked, no one has the right to spend their life without being offended." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=player_embedded).
The media needs to learn that about the Muslims as well. They aren't a special group any more than Christians or Atheists or anyone else. If they want to get whiny about people making fun of them the answer needs to be "Shut up, nobody cares," and then go back to making fun.
A very important part of free speech is the ability to make fun of things, including, maybe even especially, the things people hold sacred.
Re:The media really are pussies (Score:5, Insightful)
"A very important part of free speech is the ability to make fun of things, including, maybe even especially, the things people hold sacred."
An even more important part of free speech is the right to attack and ridicule any belief and any person. This is vital to freedom because otherwise restraints on speech will be exploited to censor debate and stop opposition.
As for the superstitions of the desert, it would be nice if their followers had but one throat and my hands were on it.
Re:The media really are pussies (Score:5, Funny)
The media needs to learn that about the Muslims as well. They aren't a special group any more than Christians or Atheists or anyone else. If they want to get whiny about people making fun of them the answer needs to be "Shut up, nobody cares," and then go back to making fun.
As an agnostic I'm possibly offended that agnostics weren't specifically mentioned in that statement at all. Maybe offended. I mean, I have no real proof one way or the other.
Re:The media really are pussies (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care what your values are (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not required to. However America's values (and my values) place freedom of speech extremely highly. It is the very top of the bill of rights. As such, in America it should be protected at nearly all costs, even if it pisses others off.
So if you live in a culture that doesn't like free speech, fine, I don't care. That's not my problem and we have NO reason at all to be "sensitive" about your culture. Especially when those cultures don't seem to be "sensitive" about ours.
The terrorists have won (Score:4, Insightful)
The heavily censored version of episode 201 that aired last night has a lot of people angry, including the show's creators.
The terrorists have won.
Re:The terrorists have won (Score:5, Informative)
The terrorists have won.
They won on October 26, 2001, the day that George W. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act [wikipedia.org] into law.
No, they have not. (Score:5, Insightful)
The terrorists only win when we lose the will to fight for our Freedoms.
If anything, this shows that Comedy Central has surrendered to terrorism.
But Matt and Trey are still fighting for Freedom of Speech.
Mohamad == pedo bear (Score:5, Funny)
Come get me you extremist fucktards.
The terrorists win! (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is what happens when you let terrorists censor you.
Re:The terrorists win! (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is what happens when you let terrorists censor you.
It's more (worse) than that. I know you didn't literally mean what you said (as the terrorists don't run Comedy Central... I don't think). It is that CC is censoring its own broadcast out of fear, not because of a decree from another governing entity.
1984? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml [comedycentral.com]
Re:1984? (Score:5, Interesting)
"I just want you guys to know that in bowing to pressure from a bunch of religious radicals, you have successfully offended millions of Americans who believe freedom of speech needs to be preserved and protected. You have failed the american people and let the agents of terror dictate your actions.
Now that you have set this precedent, radicals know that all they have to do to get their way is to threaten with violence. Thanks for setting back hundreds of years worth of progressive thought and returning us to the days when the church gets to dictate what the masses can view."
Re:1984? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the classic "it's not censorship if it's not the government" argument.
The problem is that if all the major sources of entertainment and news choose to censor themselves then you still end up with a situation that's just as bad as government censorship, it's just the reasons for censorship that are different (money + fear instead of ideology).
Free Publicity Rules! (Score:4, Insightful)
Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
What Comedy Central did was absolutely pathetic. Parker & Stone had already self-censored the episode by not actually showing any pictures of Muhammad and the way they did it was absolutely hilarious. But apparently you can't even speak the work "Muhammad" on Comedy Central. That Comedy Central allows them to ridicule anything and everything - any and all other religions are open game - but when it comes to anything Islam-related suddenly there's a whole new set of rules. Hypocrisy and cowardice at its finest.
I hope that the uncensored version makes its way out soon.
The media makes it worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
So lets see, at least in the United States of America we have the beleif of "Freedom of Speech" right? That means we can dissent when we feel especially strong about something.
So I figure, for anyone who says "the creators are wrong in their satire" just opens the door for "those hippies supporting marijuana" (Viva Marijuana was the sign I saw this morning on the way to work) to also be "censored."
Oh but that's totally different right? Lets move to 'scientology.' Why should they not be allowed to censor people? Political groups? Schools? Religions with abuse scandals? Where/when do we stop censoring?
The best and most straightforward argument I have heard regarding this is:
"South Park has made fun of Christians, Jews, people of different ethnicities and organizations. But none other than the Muslims have threatened violence before." That should tell us where the real problem lies.
From my point of view, when I first saw South Park I was offended (Jesus Christ Vs. Santa Claus). But as time passed and I gave it a chance... eventually viewing it when it came on Comedy Central I enjoyed it. As a matter of fact, I regularly recommend it to people when key issues come up. Such as their red cross/catholic scandal episode.
Finally, what happened with Issac Hayes was tragic but eye opening. He shows that "I can be part of something (great) that covers a lot of subjects - that consequently offend everyone at some point or other, as long as it doesn't offend me or my beliefs."
Why is Islam special? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's more, they've even depicted Muhammad before!! In the episode Super Best Friends [wikipedia.org]. It boggles the mind that followers of a religion of love can be so hateful over something so mind-bogglingly ridiculous.
Send your complaints to Comedy Central (Score:5, Informative)
Why THIS time Muhammed ? (Score:4, Interesting)
What a bunch of whining, gutless fucking pussies. (Score:5, Insightful)
The terrorists have won (Score:5, Insightful)
Flex your rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Trey and Matt should have Mohammed in every fucking episode they air from now on. I don't just mean in the intro to the show, I mean like a new character like one of the boys.
Let those censoring assholes fucking WORK to achieve censorship...
force is lack of moral authority (Score:4, Insightful)
Any time force is threatened, the threatening party has lost moral authority. If you seek to affect moral change in somebody, then your own representation of your ideals should be enough to convince them.
What I wrote in Comedy Central's comment box (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
At the risk of my good karma, you're a moron. They didn't censor the part with Jesus watching porn, or Buda doing lines of coke, they censored the speaking of the word "prophet muhammed" and the "I learned something today" speech that didn't even mention muhammed. All because people are scared of offending muslims.
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Informative)
Because while Christians will turn the other cheek, and Buddhists likewise, Muslims will fucking kill you.
Re:You don't say (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
And there are Muslims that I'm more afraid to be around than the 'gun-toting Americans' I went to school with.
What's your point?
(For record, I know what you were trying to say, and it's bullshit. There are crazies in every group. Just because some asshole said he wants to kill Muslims is no reason to brand all 'gun-toting Americans' as genocide-supporters.
Re:You don't say (Score:4, Interesting)
That reminds me of Bill Hicks. He always said that there were always some crazy christians that would bother him after the show (specially in the south), and they would go:
"Buddy, come here" (pushing him) "Hey, come here (push)" then he would push away with his hand, while saying "come here .... not a physics major".
And then ...
- We are christians, we don't like what you said
- Then forgive me.
"Later, when i was hanging from the tree ..."
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a gun toting American! I'm also a liberal, and an atheist, and I live in New York City. What exactly does "turning one's cheek" have to do with with carrying a firearm? You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right? You do realize that the overwhelming majority of _law abiding_ persons who own/carry firearms do so with the knowledge that they are only to be used only the event of IMMINENT FEAR OF DEATH AND/OR GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. Even the disciples carried swords, you dimwit. With that said...
A paradoy of your deity might be considered a petty insult. This is the instance where you turn the other cheek. You don't go around killing people for this petty shit.
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Informative)
Both of them do, actually. The Bible advocates stoning many people under various circumstances, and the Qur'an has a few specific instructions for dealing with infidels, including killing apostates.
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
When one is presented with contradictory instructions, one chooses the instruction that fits what one wants to do.
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Funny)
RTFK
You are very confused (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with the situation in Iraq is that the US's goal was to occupy the country and bring about a peaceful democracy. That is a tough goal when the people don't want it and the army isn't designed for it. The US has never had an army of conquest, it is not an army with massive manpower needed to occupy a country. It is an army designed to kill effectively, something it does extremely well. You'll note that the Iraqi army was smashed in days, with next to no loss on the US side.
I'm not talking about going in and occupying countries, I'm talking about killing people. If radical country X attacks the US because their crazys don't like South Park, the US attacks them and wipes out the crazies. They don't stick around. The idea is deterrence and prevention, not nation building.
As a practical matter, that isn't likely to be necessary. If there are attacks it is probably just lone crazies. For that we have a competent criminal justice system. Ideally they are stopped before hand, with deadly force if necessary, and if you they are tried and imprisoned or executed.
Oh and have you had a look at the world economy? This down turn is not a US thing and is not related to military spending, but rather to the collapse of a bubble caused by rampant speculation, poor regulation, and odd financial products.
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
> All because people are scared of offending muslims.
The are not scared of offending Muslims, per se. They are scared of being murdered. Their fear is not unfounded and is with precedent.
Re:You don't say (Score:4, Interesting)
Never the less, there has to be a point where the West stands up for its hard won values, and not just against Islamists, but against governments who are equally terrified of our liberties.
What this whole debacle, and every single time some group or another decides their religious beliefs trump free speech demonstrates is pathetic cowardice and utter immaturity. I truly pity those so frightened of words that they feel they have to threaten violence. I can't imagine being that craven and worthless.
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to bash on Comedy Central when you aren't the one in danger.
Where is it written that innocent television broadcasters need to put their lives on the line to adhere to your ideals?
this is a job (Score:5, Funny)
for anonymous
where are you hordes of slovenly /b/tards?
scientology was a dwarf. before you stands the goliath of muslim fundamentalism. take an aim and swing. i want images of muhammad every fucking where
do you what you do best oh great low iq hivemind
do it for the EPIC LULZ
UNLEASH THE MUHAMMAKRAKEN
NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND ONE NIGHTS!!!!!!
Re:You don't say (Score:4, Interesting)
You get a few nukes dropped on you, scores of people die, then you move on with your life and build one of the most powerful and technologically advanced (albeit still suicidal) societies on Earth?
Sounds almost like a plan.
Re:You don't say (Score:4, Insightful)
"Fuck that Pedo The Prophet Muhammed!"
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Interesting)
Man, you sound like Cheney. When you aim south, somebody’s going to get shot in the north! ^^
Or in other words: You deserve an award for how much you miss the point. (And not a good award.)
Protip: There was a time when Christians acted like this. It’s called THE DARK AGES!
It was a desperate time. With crusades, inquisitions, but most of all, power-greedy dicks controlling people.
This is the exact same thing now. Only in the Muslim world.
It does not matter AT ALL, which “religion” it is.
Because religion really is a protective mechanism gone haywire, causing a delusional reality distortion. Which is then used by some real immoral assholes, to manipulate people, to do shit like this.
But your anger only fuels it even more. And I think you know this, and do it deliberately. Or at least should know it, if you want to call yourself educated and better.
What do you think you going to get, by acting like a dick and strengthening their disease even more?
Wanna know how to get them out of their delusion? The same thing as with schizophrenia: Offer them a better alternative, and let them keep their pride. Let them migrate to that better alternative, until they simply stop having the need for the delusion.
Then they naturally will stop caring for “Muhammed”.
Of course this is easier said than done. But I don’t see an alternative. Or do you really want to insult and kill disabled people? I couldn’t be that heartless. Because it would make me no betther than the mullahs or them.
Wanna know what I do when I meet a religious extremist? :)
I do a little nice gesture, that makes their life better, and causes them to instantly like me.
When I do it right, and give them some time, I can pull a joke on Muhammed, and they won’t hate me, but join in in it.
The little glimmer of hope that we’re actually nice people and will together make things good, is already enough.
Try it. And you may even make your enemies your allies.
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
I've met religious zealots before -- none Muslim, and what I learned from being open-minded to their beliefs and killing them with kindness so to speak, is that I often am regarded as one of the "good ones", an exception to an otherwise horrible lot of people that ought to be either put on an island somewhere or converted. To me, religious extremists are unreasonable, and you can only gain so much with them. You can never be one of them in their eyes. At best, you're a pet. Still, it's admirable to try, and it doesn't help to go provoking overly sensitive people.
On the other hand, perhaps OP is a dick, but going through life having to make special exceptions for Muslims is absolutely unreasonable. We are not bound by Muslim law in this part of the world, and we resist attempts to have our freedom of expression taken from us in order to please them. There is nothing special about the Muslim sensitivity that it deserves this treatment. I would say the same of other religious extremists too however, including various Christian groups.
Re:You don't say (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. They DID sign up to let South Park offend everyone. They've made a killing giving South Park free reign. It's hypocritical as hell for them to suddenly do otherwise.
If it isn't OK, then it isn't OK - even if you will make a lot of money. That's my issue with this. If CC is going to make a decision that says "we don't want to offend" then apply that principle equally. But don't puss out because someone made a threat. Stand up for the principles you've stood by to this point; "We don't give a shit about sensibilities because it make us boatloads of money"
Re:You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I thought the whole two-part episode kind of sucked anyway, but the overzealous censoring of the second part was just ridiculous.
Muslims... You don't say (Score:5, Insightful)
Muslims told everyone else how to behave and what they are allowed to say?
You don't say?
I thought it was a coincidence that many of the most theocratic, oppressive, and evil regimes justify their existence with Islam.
This was of course the point of the South Park episode. They insulted every religion in the world in that episode, and only one threatened violence and managed to get their bit censored. It's 2010 and Islam is stuck in the 1300s. It's impact on the world is violent, pushy, and fascist.
Re:Muslims... You don't say (Score:4, Funny)
You're pretty ignorant if you believe they offended "every religion in the world". *cough* Confucianism *cough* Daoism *cough* unimaginable other amounts of religions based off of Native American, African, tribes or other versions of Christianity, Judiasm, etc. etc. etc.
They were offended by not being included.
Re:Muslims... You don't say (Score:4, Insightful)
It's 2010 and Islam is stuck in the 1300s. It's impact on the world is violent, pushy, and fascist.
That is unfair to the majority of modern and progressive muslims. The image of Islam we all see is distorted by media coverage, and muslims are usually as irritated as we are by violent, pushy, and fascist muslims.
Maybe so, but the image of planes flying into buildings, reporters being beheaded, gays being hung, women getting stoned because they had the audacity to get raped and endless missiles launched into neighborhoods from elementary schools tend to leave more of an impression than the puff piece about the Muslim immigrant who saved a kitten from a tree.
Re:You don't say (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also interesting in the way they chose to censor it. Tom Cruise got censored when he "received Mohammed's goo", but it was done in the exact same way Mohammed in the bear suit was, implying a joke. Presumably Matt and Trey did not have Tom transform into Mohammed, since not showing Mohammed was the joke to begin with; perhaps he transformed into a bear suit too or something along those lines. Whatever was really there, CC had no need to censor the image of Cruise, since Muslims would not have had a problem with Cruise in a bear suit or whatever. Censoring him in the same way was, again, a joke.
As for the end speech being entirely bleeped, if it's true that it didn't mention Mohammed at all, then bleeping it makes no sense at all. This is the network that had no problem with 216 utterances of the word shit after all; what could Stan and Kyle possibly been saying that was so offensive? Again, it seemed like this was a joke, poking fun at the whole censorship thing.
What's disturbing here is that, if it's true CC made these censors without Matt and Trey's knowledge, then they were not only censoring, but adding or changing jokes in the episode as well. Censorship is one thing, but creatively changing an episode...I would think that from the creators eyes that would be even worse, and I can't believe CC would dare do such a thing.
Despite the statement, I'm still not convinced this isn't all some big hoax or joke. The censoring done in the episode just doesn't make any sense, unless it's part of the episode, jokes about the whole situation.
Re:You don't say (Score:4, Informative)
Nowhere did CC or Trey/Parker say that the images of Cruise or Mohammed being censored were not part of the show. It was the *auditory* censorship that was added by CC prior to airing. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the CENSORED box over Mohammed and Cruise were not part of the episode itself (without that, the point of Cruise being censored would have been weaker). I'd love to be proven wrong on this, I really would - however everything I have seen indicates that only the aural censorship was imposed by CC, and that's what the official statements I've seen have said. The only places I've seen anything saying that the black boxes were added by CC were by posts like this and unauthoritative blogs by authors who may have been equally ill-informed. I see that the parent is saying CC may have censored Cruise as a joke - but I haven't seen anything to suggest CC did that, only the beeping/aural censoring.
Like I said, I'd love to see a statement or other proof to the contrary. Either way CC toppled on this way too easily and for no reason, that argument isn't damaged by this.
Re:Something funny about all this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I asked the question (Score:5, Interesting)
The world used to work that way. We call that period in history the Dark Ages for a reason...
He is (Score:5, Informative)
and he is right to be afraid. even egyptian reformers were killed, just because they proposed the possibility of maaaybe reinterpreting koran with today's principles.
Re:Religion: source of all evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps not so much afraid of Islamist terrorists as of the dreaded -1, off topic, I suspect.
Re:Islam is dangerous. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, because koran is the 'unchanged' word of god (so says islam)
Interestingly enough, we now have proof that isn't true. Islam maintains the Koran is as it always has been and that it is unchanged, literal transcription of Mohammed. That's why they condemn the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah. Turns out, the Koran has been proved to be in flux as late as 160+ years AFTER Mohamed died.
Naturally Islam is claiming everything from blasphemy to the work of Satan. Some even claim the West created this Koran in question and planted it within the hidden set of text to be "discovered" again so as to discredit Islam and the Koran.
Oddly enough, if you take the Koran as literal truth, it is itself mandating you understand the Koran is not true. Makes me wonder how many people are likely to die in the future as more and more come to understand the book which open touts it is both the literal word and unchanging truth, has in fact been changed by man and remained in flux well after Mohammed's death; which is contrary to ALL Islamic teachings. Even worse, the Koran argues all text which has been changed by man has been corrupted by Satan; which is why they largely ignore the old testament and Torah despite being squarely rooted in it. In short, the Koran it self now argues the Koran is the work of Satan and can not be trusted any more than the Torah or the Old Testament.
Re:Islam is dangerous. (Score:5, Informative)
they are. but, in addition to koran, second tier of islam is mohammad's hadith, ie what he said. after that, his sunnet comes, which is the way he lived. the separations of sects in islam mainly start from that third point. some follow mohammad's life as example (sunnis) some dont. some follow his relatives (shiites). and so on. fundamentalism from koran remains same in all sects.