Some people just insist on showing their "but"s

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Even now people are saying, "Murdering over speech is wrong -- BUT..."

Just say, "No" to BUT monkeys.

[Enrique]

1. i like buts

buts are what prevent wars. If you don't have any buts, then you have to take everything to the extreme, which is war.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. In most cases I agree, and I think that's always the side to err on.

Killing people for blasphemy, however, is a counterexample, at least in the immediate aftermath.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

48. bigotry

Fyp

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. Five year plan? For your pleasure? N.T.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

70. explained

"Blasphemy is the practice of questioning a tradition from within. In contrast, bigotry is an assault on hat tradition from the outside. If blasphemy is an attempt to speak truth to power, bigotry is the reverse: an attempt by power to instrumentalize truth. A defining feature of the cartoon debate is that bigotry is being mistaken for blasphemy" ~ Dr.Mahmood Mamdani

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. I think that that is obvious nonsense.

He's creating a wholly spurious and artificial distinction to try and smear people who disagree with his views.

One reason it's obviously not true is that the term "blasphemers" is often used to by religious people to attack non-practitioners of their religion.

Another reason is that it means that pointing out that, say, criminalising homosexuality is wrong, is bigotted.


Incidentally, I just googled Dr Mamdani and, amusingly, I found this passage:

"He was among the many northern students who made the bus journey south to Birmingham, Alabama organised by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) to participate in the civil rights movement. He was jailed during the march and was allowed to make a phone call. Mamdani called the Ugandan Ambassador in Washington, D.C for assistance. The ambassador asked him why he was 'interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign country' to which he responded by saying that this was not an internal affair but a freedom struggle and that they too had got their freedom only last year."

Well, good for him back then, but he's just very obviously defined himself as bigot...

[TheBlackAdder]

29. Question: Does chewing out a BUT Monkey make you a BUT Muncher?

Jury complaint in 3... 2... 1...

[randys1]

2. Murdering over anything is wrong, given the definition of murder

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Sounds a tad too tautological.

Consider: The Iranian government (as opposed to the Iranian people) said murdering innocents is wrong.

But this is the same government (not people) that has declared Salman Rushdie as being not innocent.

[Brother Buzz]

4. R. Crumb loves showing Ralph (Mohamid) Bakshi's butt

http://observer.com/2015/01/legendary-cartoonist-robert-crumb-on-the-massacre-in-paris/

[Enrique]

5. the flies are a nice touch

[TheBlackAdder]

30. Almost reminiscent of a Mad Magazine cartoon. nt

[oberliner]

13. Interesting how he implies even he is scared to present a profane image of the prophet

A lot going on in that little cartoon - very meta.

[Raine1967]

23. He spoke of this cartoon today. I don't think he is scared at all.

http://observer.com/2015/01/legendary-cartoonist-robert-crumb-on-the-massacre-in-paris/ two thing stuck out to me:

"France has an Arab population that’s like, 5 Million, something like that – huge population of Muslims in this country, most of whom just want to mind their own business and don’t want to be bothered. Those kinds of extremists are a very small minority. We have friends here who are from that background, you know, Moroccan or Algerian. And they just don’t want any trouble, and their kids are mostly even more moderate than they are."

and this:

"You don’t have journalists over there anymore, what they have is public relations people. That’s what they have over in America now. Two-hundred and fifty thousand people in public relations. And a dwindling number of actual reporters and journalists."

[oberliner]

24. Yes, he definitely clearly is

And that is part of the point of the cartoon.

From the link:

I said, first: “I don’t have the courage to make an insulting cartoon of Muhammed.”

Then I thought, “OK, I’m the Cowardly Cartoonist…As a Cowardly Cartoonist, I can’t make some glib comment like that, you know? I have to, like, make fun of myself. So instead of drawing the face of Muhammed [laughs], I drew the ass of Muhammed. [Laughs.] But then I had myself saying, in small lettering, “Actually, this is the ass of my friend of Mohamid Bakshi, who’s a film director in Los Angeles, California.” [Mr. Crumb is referencing Ralph Bakshi, the director of animated films including Fritz the Cat and the Lord of the Rings.]

So if they come at me, I’m gonna say, “No, look, it’s not Muhammed the Prophet, it’s this guy, Mohamid Bakshi.” So, you know.

[MADem]

33. It's a "but butt" cartoon, that.... nt

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I like how he takes a swipe at Ralph Bakshi in the process.

Crumb was NOT happy about Bakshi's "Fritz the Cat", and apparently he can hold a grudge for a long time.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. I know about R. Crumb and Fritz the Cat separately but what is the connection?

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Fritz the Cat was a Crumb character, originally

Bakshi did his movie- I think, without Crumb's permission at all, at the very least Crumb was real unhappy about it- so much so that Crumb eventually killed the character off.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_the_Cat

[Brother Buzz]

27. Forty-two years and counting.

Crumb despises Ralph Bakshi so much, he killed Fritz the Cat. It may take five, or it may take fifty, but I'll get even.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Seriously.

What's also funny in discussions of Crumb and "Blasphemy" is, his illustrated book of genesis is simply a masterpiece.

And Crumb self-identifies as an Atheist, I believe- but he avoided raising the ire of Christians with the Bible deal by doing a completely straight up adaptation of the text.

Of course, the actual text IS full of mayhem, sex, and wholly unsuitable for children- but since it is all actually there in King James, it is hard to lodge a religious objection.

Totally worth checking out.

[Brother Buzz]

35. Seriously, Terry Zwigoff's film, Crumb, is totally worth checking out, too

Also R. Crumb & his Cheap Suit Serenaders for a totally different perspective of Crumb's world; old music is a huge part of it.

Terry Zwigoff on cello, Robert Armstrong on National steel guitar and saw, Al Dodge on mandolin, Robert Crumb on left handed banjo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLD5FF8F34A0CE3CA5&v=FSUu62QNPwg

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Oh yeah.

"Crumb" is a masterpiece, albeit a bleak one. One of the most watchable documentaries I've seen.

[Brother Buzz]

40. Bleak might have been the view of the two conspicuously absent sisters from the film

I've often wondered what they might have contributed.




My favorite Cheap Suiter song is Get A Load Of This, loosely based on Charley Jordan’s Keep It Clean:

I wonder who did the artwork?

[Warren DeMontague]

41. "Get a load of this".. I think I've heard that one, before.

I ate that damn Swanson Turkey dinner, more than once. They all looked exactly like the package.

You must live in the Bay Area. My wife used to see Max Crumb on the BART, back in the day. I don't think he ever frotted her, though.

[Brother Buzz]

45. Crumb was my neighbor years ago before he bolted to France

I wouldn't know frotting if it bit me in the butt, but I was morbidly curious about Max's intestinal flossing. That, and his bed of nails.


The original Cheap Suiters at Crumbs house in France


The original Cheap Suiters early on


I've met all the Suiters over the years. Armstrong, another graphic artist and creator of Micky Rat, taught my son the secrets of the fine art.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. How cool!~ I think butt biting is technically different from frotting--- but probably not by much.

They did a nice job of recreating the original picture, there.

Yeah, the intestinal flossing.

I have a poster signed by Stan Mouse somewhere, but have never met Mr. Crumb.

[m-lekktor]

46. lol nt

[rock]

6. But, but, but ...

They have some BIG buts!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Sir Mix-A-Lot would be happy here.

[MADem]

34. ...and he cannot lie. nt

[Hutzpa]

9. It's the "imps and whores" culture that have been allowed to engulfed America. eom

[Warren DeMontague]

18. You mean Tyrion Lannister?

What he does on his time off is his own business.

[bravenak]

51. For real.

[CJCRANE]

10. Do you like everything the police do?

Do you think the police deserve to do their job without being attacked?

We all criticize the police but we think they deserve to do their job in safety. This same argument is playing out in NYC right now, that we shouldn't criticize them.

As for the cartoons, it's a matter of taste. I saw one I didn't like, but then later I saw one that I did like. I feel for the cartoonists' humanity. It's a very sad situation, they don't deserve to be attacked for what they do.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. I see you added a second comment, which is more in line with the OP. This particular post isn't

what I was addressing but since you broached the subject allow me to say -- I like the police so much I became an anarchist.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. The context of the police discussions is, some people died at the hands of the police.

However one feels about the circumstances of those situations, that's why it has come up.

The Charlie Hebdo cartoons didn't cause anyone to die, unless "they made me so mad I was forced to kill the people who drew them" counts.

[CJCRANE]

68. Yes, but the NYPD say that you shouldn't criticize them otherwise

you are condoning the murder of their officers, in particular the two officers who were murdered recently.

It's a similar way of conflating two separate issues.

Plus as I mentioned below, the whole point about Charlie Hebdo is being offensive, so it would be strange if people didn't comment on that. One can have an opinion about the magazine's content and also one about what happened to the cartoonists. They are two separate opinions. And if you think the cartoons are offensive then they're doing what they're supposed to do. I think some of them are offensive but I now "get" what they're were trying to do and I might buy a copy.

[brer cat]

11. Telling people what they are allowed to say

or not say is an odd way of defending free speech.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. Where did I make any pretense at restricting speech? I simply noted people are making

equivocating arguments.

[brer cat]

32. Perhaps I failed to see the point of your OP.

I haven't noticed what I think of as equivocating arguments in the recent posts about the Charlie Hebdo murders. But then you didn't finish the sentence "Even now people are saying, 'Murdering over speech is wrong -- BUT...'" so maybe you are referring to comments I haven't seen, or a different subject entirely, or perhaps you just dislike the use of "but" regardless of what follows. I surely don't know how to interpret "just say 'no' to the but monkey" other than telling folks what to say or not say, but I could be wrong there as well.

At any rate, I was not trying to pick a fight with you.

[CJCRANE]

12. If the cartoons are offending people...

then they're doing their job!

So it would be strange if people *didn't* complain about them!

The cartoonist who wasn't in the meeting said he "vomits" on all of their new fans. This is what they do and did well.

[frazzled]

16. It's an indication of not wanting to talk about ...

the underlying issue (let's be frank: it's about a jihadist ideology that has attracted many adherents, and the actions, all over the globe, that have been taken in its name). And so people try to hijack the conversation to whatever favorite screed they wish to rant about.

Sometimes, you just have call a cigar a cigar and deal with the ashes. (And now, we can call them Cuban cigars!).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. "Sometimes, you just have call a cigar a cigar"

Yeah, but sometimes those cigars can be real d***s.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. victim blaming.

a lot of it.

[el_bryanto]

21. Is it possible to discuss how people chose to use their right to free speech

without suggesting that you think they deserve to be murdered for exercising it?

If I said for example, I think Family Guy has about three jokes, and an inherent nastiness about it that just puts me off, does that imply I want Seth McFarlane killed?

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

37. How about we discuss how people use their right to freedom of religion?

So if I say religion has about two good ideas, an inherent nastiness and that it just puts me off, what does that mean about the fact that killing people is just wrong, no qualifications?

[el_bryanto]

39. I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate here. nt

[Skittles]

49. that right there is the problem

[el_bryanto]

55. Then explain it to me. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

42. If Seth McFarlane had just been killed for his off-putting jokes a couple days ago

now might not be the best time to go on and on about how terribly offensive his shtick was.

In fact, some might consider that "off-putting".

[el_bryanto]

43. Fair enough.

I find myself torn on this issue; because on the one hand I agree that it is too soon to discuss that - on the other hand, certainly a number of people are making arguments related to these murders involving Islam, Muslims and religion in general that are hard to respond to without talking about some of these issues.

But perhaps it is best to just let that go for a bit.

Bryant

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. On any given day I could be counted among the critics of Hebdo for their bigoted nastiness

because they have offended some of my deepest beliefs.

On the day they are threatened with violence or worse I am obligated to defend them because my even deeper beliefs haven't been merely offended but violated.

[bluestateguy]

31. The Duke lacrosse case

After the young men were cleared by the state AG as explicitly innocent, we had some of the "but" crowd here on DU.

That it was somehow their fault for putting themselves into a position where they could be wrongly accused.

[Skittles]

50. you really, really had to stretch there

[meow2u3]

36. Don't tutch the but

That's all I have to say.

[countryjake]

52. Yup...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7950254

[Skittles]

47. these apologists make me SICK

they're like gun humpers on steroids

[seabeyond]

56. bullshit. you are demanding hypocrisy from people. no. how about that. no buts. just a no.

talk about restriction of freedom of speech.

yes murder is wrong. still does not mean one cannot call out the bullshit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. I never came close to suggesting bigoted speech cannot be castigated as such.

Hebdo published material that offended many of my deepest beliefs and as such they should be confronted but the moment they were threatened with violence those same beliefs tell me they are to be protected.

[seabeyond]

59. no one calling out the hate is saying they deserve it. and when you come on here and claim

if anyone challenges that hate, then they are "but monkeys" somehow condoning the murders, then you are using your freedom of speech to try and restrict others.

no. at the point of the threat, or after the killings, our responsibility is to clearly state the violence is wrong. right alongside the ability to print racist, hateful speech.

to condemn one is not to condone the other. life simply does not work that way. our brain is agile enough to figure that out.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. How is my being critical of the but monkeys restricting free speech for but monkeys?

Is your being critical of me a restriction of my free speech? I doubt it because damned is the day anyone can shut me up.

at the point of the threat, or after the killings, our responsibility is to clearly state the violence is wrong. right alongside the ability to print racist, hateful speech

But the two are dealt with completely differently. Bigotry is dealt with dialogue between free citizens. Violence or the threat of it are a matter for criminal prosecution.

[seabeyond]

61. if anyone walks from your script of what is allowed ot be said, you call them but monkeys and tell

them to shut up, because they are condoning murder, with the buts. though no one is using the buts. they are stating murder and violence is wrong.

challenging you, what you are saying is not telling you to shut up. it is disagreeing what you are saying. nowhere are you hearing me say, you are not allowed to say what you are. i am saying, i disagree with you.

you do not see the difference.

and the rest of your post? so? i am fine with it. yes. bigotry is dealt with thru society and violence is dealt with law.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. So challenging me is NOT suppression but my challenging the but monkeys is

you do not see the difference

Yeah, pretty much. It sounds like conveniently structured hypocritical nonsense.

But you be you, I have no interest silencing debate, be a pal and return the favor.

[seabeyond]

63. you are not challenging what others say. you are demanding that others not say it. if they do,

then they are condoning murder.

you are using a vile manner to shut people up.

i am not doing that. i disagree with you. i am stating where i disagree with you. i am telling you that i can say.... but, without condoning violence and murder.

you are telling me, if i say but, i am condoning violence and murder. you are flat out in your OP telling me and others, we are NOT allowed to use but.

that is dictating speech.

NO but monkey is what you say.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. You're delusional. I made no such demands.

NO but monkey is what you say.

If you're going to quote me, quote me accurately.

I wrote, "just say no to but monkeys" That is no more an effort to suppress speech than would be a statement of, "say no to bigotry."

[seabeyond]

65. Just say, "No" to BUT monkeys. ??? no to but monkeys is what i quote and you call me delusional.

thanks for going to insult.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. What's insulting is having words put in my mouth.

Since you like adding to what people say let's try an experiment. Please finish the following --

"I don't condone gang rape -- BUT __________ ."

[TorchTheWitch]

74. I don't condone gang rape, BUT

I also don't condone vigilante killing of any of the rapers involved in the gang rape. BUT, I also understand the intense anger against the rapers for having raped you or a loved one that fuels the desire for vigilante "justice" or revenge.

I don't condone gang rape, BUT I also believe that it is reprehensible to blame the victim for their own rape regardless of what she wore, where she was, what she was doing, etc.

If you aren't willing to listen to what comes after the "BUT" and insist that whatever is said after the BUT is unworthy of being said even though you don't yet know what is going to be said then you're trying to curtail someone else's freedom of speech. Worse, your insisting that whatever may be said after that "BUT" means that regardless of what may be said it has to mean that the person that hasn't even yet said anything is going to be saying something that belies their insistence that they don't condone XYZ.

I just gave an example to your question that certainly a reasonable person - even you - couldn't and wouldn't disagree with. BUT, you are advocating that anyone that says anything about the attacks in France that condemns the attack followed by a "BUT" IS going to condone the killings or blame the victims for having been killed, etc. when you don't yet know what is going to be said after that "BUT". Clearly that is an attempt to silence others (against the concept of free speech). Worse, it demonizes anyone that says anything after the "BUT" must be condoning the attack and/or blaming the victims for being killed even when they don't do anything of the sort or have yet to say anything at all.

Yes, it is possible to condemn the attack and ALSO not approve of what was said by the victims of the attack. The two are not mutually exclusive. Like many others here I utterly condemn the attack, yet also dislike and disagree with the sort of speech that Charlie Hebdo produced though not all of it. I find that much of it is hate speech against people that hold religious beliefs and recognize the difference between the average person of faith and the wrongheaded hateful intolerance of some of a religion's clergy or the extremist faithful of a religion.

BUT, being a believer in free speech rights I also believe that regardless of how intolerant and hateful CH's publications are to me that they had the right to say/publish them according to France's laws concerning free speech. Just as I also believe that the KKK, Stormfront, Westborough Baptist Church and many other groups I disagree with that say intolerant things that are hateful still has the free speech rights to say them.

If one is to believe in free speech rights for all than one must also believe that things they deeply disagree with can be said. I also understand that having the rights of free speech means that you also have the responsibility of the effect your words may have and that saying things that are considered hateful and intolerant may be a risk not only to who says them but to uninvolved bystanders. Countering speech one disagrees with must always be non-violent and legal.

I find your OP to be vile in it's attempt to not only quash speech you disagree with, which is anti-free speech, but to also demonize anyone that MIGHT disagree with before they have said anything at all as well at attempt to assign meaning to their speech not yet said as being false and other than what they have not yet said. That is about as anti-free speech rights as it gets without violence. I thoroughly condemn your anti-free speech screed, BUT though DU is not a forum where there is the right of free speech I also believe that you have the right to say it regardless of how stupid, anti-free speech and blatant an attempt to control that it is.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. Your analogies fail because none of them ascribe culpability to the victim. Simply adding the word

"but" does not make it analogous. You might as well have written, "I don't condone gang rape but I like rice crispies."

Moreover, your would-be analogies also rely on stifling some action. If you would stifle vigilantes would you also stifle cartoonists?

Apart from that -- you certainly wrong a lot.

The debate finds us between a cartoonist and a killer. We can only stop one. Which way will we turn?

[TorchTheWitch]

80. What a pant load

Now you're changing your own narrative from what you actually said in your OP. Which means even you recognize how wrong it is. If you believed in it yourself then you would have defended it instead of trying to make it into something entirely different than what it was.

Of course my analogies rely on stifling some action. That action is criminal violent action in the case of vigilante "justice" which is not free speech but a crime and morally wrong however understandable the desire may be. It isn't free speech any more than the terrorists killing workers at Charlie Hebdo and shoppers at Hyper Cacher was. I said I didn't condone it, which I don't because I recognize that not condoning something doesn't mean I'm stifling anyone's free speech as free speech has limits including violent retaliatory action. Even you recognize that vigilante "justice" that is violent is not free speech but a violent crime and agree that anyone who murders for revenge and/or anger - which is exactly what the terrorists did - isn't free speech but a violent crime the law and morality don't condone or allow. I could easily ask the same of you that if you would "stifle" a vigilante killer bent on revenge just as those terrorists were would you also want to "stifle" the free speech of cartoonists. Or did you ask such an absurd question because you actually believe that the violent crime of vigilante "justice" is an appropriate action?

I also don't condone attempts to blame the victim - and neither do you - though anyone that does has the free speech right to. Not condoning something doesn't mean you're stopping anyone from doing it or trying to, or are you confused about what the meaning of the word is? Not condoning some speech or action means that you disagree with it, not that you are trying to or want to stifle what non-violent speech is used. Your OP did attempt to stifle the free speech of anyone that that condemned the killings followed by "BUT" when you didn't even know what would be followed by that "BUT" or whether or not you would agree with it. And THAT is a blatant attempt to stifle free speech even that free speech that you would have agreed with had anyone disregarded your attempt to stifle them and said what they liked as I just did.

The debate is whatever one wants to make of it. You made it about trying to silence and demonize anyone that you might disagree with even before they said anything, and that's what I responded to as have others. Without question it was an attempt to stifle the free speech of anyone that you MIGHT disagree with even before they said anything.

There is no debate between a cartoonist and a killer. Every single person here has condemned the killers including me. As far as I've seen no one has said that the cartoonists should have been stopped from publishing their free speech including me even those of us that disagree with their message. We aren't going to be able to stop the killers because terrorists unfortunately can't always be discovered or stopped before they strike. There are always going to be terrorists as there always has been. In a perfect world we'd be able to stop all terrorists before they ever get the notion to be one or any other killer or violent criminal. It isn't a perfect world. No one but you is trying to debate choosing between stopping the terrorists or stopping CH's free speech.

I've had more than enough of your attempts to silence and demonize people here before they've said anything that you MIGHT disagree with and your ridiculous backpedaling to try to make it appear that your OP said something other than exactly what it did.

>>>CLICK<<<

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. If you insist on claiming my OP is about trying to silence the but monkeys than you are either

delusional or lying. Debate and criticism is not suppressing speech. You are currently engaged in a criticism of my OP; are you attempting to silence me?

If not, then by what arrogance of non-existent authority do you presume to assign such motives to me when I have repeatedly stated I have no motive except debate and criticism?

If it is your intent to silence me than: Go soak your head. You're a hypocrite and you don't get to tell me what what to say or how to act.

Either way, the sole deciding factor relies on the but monkeys themselves. If they are embarrassed by having their equivocation in the name of terrorism pointed out in public forums they are free to stop saying things that embarrass them -- or they can continue to say stupid stuff just as I and others are free to continue calling them on it.

Because, you see, freedom of speech.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. if people are allowed to criticize charlie hebdo, other people are allowed to criticize those people, too.

If criticism = telling someone to "shut up", how is what you are doing to the OP here any different?

[LanternWaste]

58. Subordinate clauses are difficult for the sub-literate.

Subordinate clauses are difficult for the sub-literate. Next thing we know, 'however' and 'yet' will be indicative of supporting Hitler.

[dawg]

66. I have more in common with Charlie Hebdo than I do with the terrorists, **BUT** ...

I have more in common with the millions of ordinary, non-murderous Muslims who were offended by the "satire" than I do with Charlie Hebdo. And I think that sort of nuance is an important part of the discussion we should be having.

I tend to view negatively any attempts to minimize discussion, enforce conformity of opinion, or deny nuance.

I guarantee you that the terrorists who perpetrated this attack are not big fans of "buts" either.

[seabeyond]

67. ah. thank you dawgs. very good post. i have not really been in a lot of the threads.

pretty simple. murder is wrong.

but.... lol. i can not help see what you are saying, and how do i ignore that.

now. i am back out of this discussion. no buts about it cause i have things to do.

thank you for sending me off, experiencing reason.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Lots and lots of buts

Like serious whata-but-erry.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. But what about us HOWEVER monkeys?

I'm sick of us being neglected by both the but monkeys and the no but monkeys. Are we destined to live forever on the fringes of free speech flamefests?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. "Are we destined to live forever on the fringes of free speech flamefests?"

I don't know. All I do know is that there is no doubt in my mind that you are free to speak yours.

[NCTraveler]

77. The word but stands in direct opposition to black and white thinking.

It can also be used as a way for people to hedge their comments. Its use varies.

[Iggo]

79. Try "and" instead of "but."

Fixes a lot of these problems, I've found.