Egyptian girl strips to protest; western media censors her photos

[chimpkin]

SAM tends to think of us (to her, the out-group) as all alike. Is that not predictable?

We tend to think of her (to us, a member of the out-group) as like 'all of them'

In one perspective of the stereotyping process, there are the concepts of ingroups and outgroups. From each individual's perspective, ingroups are viewed as normal and superior, and are generally the group that they already associate with, or aspire to join. An outgroup is simply all the other groups.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

I suspect SAM is an independent thinker, although I have never been to Mumbai to know that...
(Although I do note that a number of people from India I have met tend to be...um, how can I put this? New York City blunt?
...last year, my wife was told by a telescammer from Mumbai to stick the phone up her a$$, so she sincerely extended wishes that a poisonous snake would eat his balls, and it went downhill from there... Yeah, I have reason to believe Mumbai people are just a little culturally edgy...)

Meaning SAM probably gets on a lot of nerves everywhere. Reminds me of the person I'm married to, a bit...

So...as I was describing this thread to the attack wife...she said "You mean, they get mad when she stereotypes them like we stereotype her?"

I said "Yup. Pretty much."
Do y'all disagree with that assessment?

 

[quadraphonics]

SAM tends to think of us (to her, the out-group) as all alike. Is that not predictable?

It's a defining, characteristic feature of out-group conceptions, of course.

We agree that Othering, while possibly unavoidable, is a fraught and dangerous pursuit, yes?

We tend to think of her (to us, a member of the out-group) as like 'all of them'

Who is this "we?" I don't see where I've dealt with S.A.M. as anything other than an individual, nor held her accountable for any sentiments other than those that she has advanced. If I'm wrong about that, well, show me where.

I reject the assertion that I am implicated in stereotyping Muslims (or whoever) simply because of my nationality, even if such out-group conceptions feature in the hegemonic discourses in my society. The refusal to so differentiate between individuals on the basis of their relationship to said discourses, is itself a form of out-group stereotyping, and one that is designed exactly to empower such hostile dialectics and silence individual agency to resist such. It is not a program that any thinking person should endorse or even, in my view, tolerate.

I suspect SAM is an independent thinker, although I have never been to Mumbai to know that...

In this day and age, and specific context, you should be looking for transnational websites like Mondoweiss and a few others that she frequently links to, if you're searching for a group-think category to place S.A.M. into.

(Although I do note that a number of people from India I have met tend to be...um, how can I put this? New York City blunt?

I don't know about all that, but it is a big city...

Meaning SAM probably gets on a lot of nerves everywhere.

I would, again, resist the temptation to attribute that to anything larger than her own individual personality, absent some fairly strong, clear evidence. I know plenty of Mumbaikars and if they're any more difficult to get along with than anyone else, I sure haven't noticed. Telemarketters are probably not the most representative sample of a particular city's politesse (or lack thereof). You've probably met obnoxious people from pretty much every group that you've had much experience with - isn't the idea that certain groups are inherently more obnoxious than others itself just an ugly stereotype of some out-group?

So...as I was describing this thread to the attack wife...she said "You mean, they get mad when she stereotypes them like we stereotype her?"

I said "Yup. Pretty much."
Do y'all disagree with that assessment?

It raises three points:

1) Are the actual individuals complaining about this guilty of stereotyping S.A.M. (or whoever)? Or is this just another iteration of the obtuse "some subset of the West is construed as stereotyping Muslims, therefor no Westerner anywhere can complain about S.A.M. stereotyping them?"

2) If stereotyping is offensive - and I'd contend that it is - then it's offensive when S.A.M. does it as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, so if she's going to complain about anyone else stereotyping her, then she has an obligation not to do the same. In that case, she will find allies who also don't like the stereotypes. Otherwise, she manifestly does not oppose stereotyping in principle, and only invokes such opposition in a craven, cynical way, and we should refuse to grant such complaints any consideration - they're nothing more than pretenses to draw us into a debased flamewar.

3) Even if we take your charitable view - that she's stereotyping the stereotypers to thwart them - that is still a textbook case of trolling. Unsurprisingly, such ostensibly-subversive troll programs pretty much never work. Pushing people into an oppositional mode does not foster self-awareness or charitable behavior. It hardens their positions and energizes their bigotry, and the result is a flamewar between opposed bigots, with all of the reasonable people silenced and/or disgusted.

Overall: these cheap games of equivocation appeal to a certain type of smug troll, but rapidly collapse upon serious consideration. They are nothing more than expressions of bigotry, packaged to inflame. The gratuitous aspects of this thread should have tipped everyone off to this quite a few posts back, in fact.

 

[Tiassa]

Overall: these cheap games of equivocation appeal to a certain type of smug troll, but rapidly collapse upon serious consideration. They are nothing more than expressions of bigotry, packaged to inflame. The gratuitous aspects of this thread should have tipped everyone off to this quite a few posts back, in fact.

While it is by no means a definitive response, I would point out that the question of equivocation also touches on the question of origins.

In American politics, for instance, we have the "both parties" argument. We also have the "marketplace of ideas" argument. Yet ne'er the twain should meet, lest people figure out something like, "Oh, hey. That's right. Sure, both sides use attack ads, but that's only because the marketplace efficacy of the attack ad is demonstrable."

To metaphorically combine the intellectual and financial marketplaces, 'tis true that two people can be shareholders in a company. But do those people, by dint of being shareholders, exist in parity? Or is it that the one who has enough shares to sit on the board of Mondocorp International have a bit more say, and therefore culpability, than the guy who can't afford to buy enough shares to have even a vote at the shareholders' meeting? So when the board runs Mondocorp into the ground, can we say that Mr. Fewshares is equally culpable to Mr. Boardmember?

And, yes, I recognize there is a thick metaphorical adjustment taking place, but I think we can get back to my point in this post. I'm sympathetic to S.A.M.'s argument in this because the comparison she points out makes the American outlook seem either arbitrary or else systematic only according to neurotic dysfunction.

So for me, part of what we end up with is the kind of irony that is corrosive to the soul: The brave Egyptian woman stands up to the forces of censorship and oppression that make her culture so distasteful to our outlooks. But we're going to show you censored versions of the pictures, because her tits are more offensive to us than a murdered or mangled corpse.

Oh, right: Except if the murdered or mangled corpse is an American. Then we have a problem even showing you the box his wrecked body is solemnly and reverently brought home in.

There is, to use the degenerate term, "a disconnect" about that sort of outlook.

It doesn't add up. Hell, I'm of the opinion that we should be showing Aliaa Magda Elmahdy's "naughty bits" in all their glory. Full zoom. High definition. From flat-panel corner to sixty-inch corner. This is one time I would be happy to rub a foreign culture's nose in it.

Except, well, we can't, because Americans are neurotic prudes without a shred of moral fiber.

 

[adoucette]

So for me, part of what we end up with is the kind of irony that is corrosive to the soul: The brave Egyptian woman stands up to the forces of censorship and oppression that make her culture so distasteful to our outlooks. But we're going to show you censored versions of the pictures, because her tits are more offensive to us than a murdered or mangled corpse.

Our media covers the story of her putting a nude picture of herself on a website because of her protesting artistic oppression in Egypt and we cover the reasons she gives for doing this and provide links to her Web site should anyone want to see the actual protest pictures (which gets about 2 million hits in no time) and yet you think there's something wrong with our media and culture because we don't also put inline on our public media her actual nude pictures?

Since when has it been the Media's responsibilty to PROMOTE someone versus REPORT a story?

Arthur

 

[wynn]

Since when has it been the Media's responsibilty to PROMOTE someone versus REPORT a story?

Since it represents the political views of its owners.

 

[wynn]

Maybe so, Signal, but I won't forget. Many are silenced by fear but not forgotten.

This is beside the point.

I am sick of people who attempt to be social reformers, who usurp the attention of the public
- and who have nothing to offer.
They do more harm than good.


I am deeply disappointed by this young woman's protest (and her supporters).
It is cheap, it is shallow, it is ineffective.

 

[adoucette]

Since it represents the political views of its owners.

No, if it is doing that, then it isn't being responsible.

 

[wynn]

No, if it is doing that, then it isn't being responsible.

Its being responsible to the owners, and itself (in the sense that it is taking care for its own means of existence).

There is no neutral organization of any kind to fund an independent media in whose interest would be to adequately inform the public.

 

[Bells]

So surprise me.

The opinions voiced in this thread does not surprise you?

Ask Signal what she thinks about victims of crime, be they children to adults, especially victims of sexual abuse and rape what she thinks about whether those victims share some of the responsibility for what was done to them. I dare you.

I'm sure that they do, although the latter strikes me more as a potential lawsuit issue over the publication of items covered under the Official Secrets Act. But I don't think it's true that women barely get away with breastfeeding. My wife breastfed in public, and the only problem I ever encountered was scaring off potential creeps...who, in retrospect, probably didn't deserve their treatment.

Your wife is lucky. Because since then, there has been a push against breastfeeding in public. Surely you are not unaware of this?

There have been countless discussions about the very issue here on this forum for example.

I still consider us at the least quite free, and certainly more so than most other cultures. You have a point regarding differences in violence. My comment is this: there is a certain cultural anxiety regarding nudie bits in Western society, but there's also a much more clear limit on what is considered offensive nudity: nipples, groin, rear end. Violence, however, strikes me as a more quantitative scale, from blood on up. So how extreme would a display of the effects of violence have to be to be equal to full-frontal nudity? Presumably it would encompass pieces of organs all over the place, and that you don't see in the newspaper either.

We are free, or we tell ourselves we are free. But that freedom is limited. I do not see the naked form as being offensive personally. This girl's photo is not pornographic but is actually quite artistic, which makes sense seeing she is protesting against the censorship of artistic expression and nudity in Egypt. Now Egypt being what it is, as you are well aware, rights of women are not equal to that of men. I personally consider this girl's protest to be very brave in the political light in which it was staged. But we censored it. But we don't censor violent images and footage in the news. Because apparently violence is deemed less offensive than the naked human form.

In what way specifically? If we have become so, where did we stand before?

I think we were a bit more open than what we are now.

Now instead we get the 'think of the children' argument when anything regarding nudity comes into play.

Well, she does relatively little criticism of such systems, frankly. If the real contrast she was trying to evoke was violence vs. nudity in the media, why include the word "Western"? What other culture has no such taboos on violence and nudity, jointly? Islamic culture is a frequent point of reference for her, and so it's reasonable to make contrasts on this basis.

Because of the irony of the West portraying itself as free and open and liberal and what the Western media did was to censor an artistic nude photograph of a young woman who posted the image as a protest against her country's crackdown against artistic expression and women in general. And she is right, it is hypocritical.

I think it would be a supreme act of hypocrisy if, in commenting on child abuse, someone raised child abuse in Catholicism and I blew that off. Whether she contrasts violence vs. nudity, or Western prejudices against nudity vs. 'Eastern' ones, Sam has created a dichotomy that explicitly involves 'the West' (see the OP). Sam makes few bones about her views of religious and social superiority - Mawdudi springs to mind here - and so it's entirely reasonable to bring that up. I am unable to discern that Catholicism as practiced is in any way superior, and so I do not proclaim it; nor am I a very strident one, if I am one at all.

She is committed to her religion as you are committed to yours.

It is easy to demand certain responses from her because of her religion. It is also easy to blame all that is wrong on her because of her religious beliefs. What irks people about Sam is that she points out the hypocrisy of their argument, so of course, people view her as believing her religious belief is superior. The fact that she has openly and repeatedly denounced the treatment of women by the followers of her religion and stated openly that it should not be up to men to decide what women wear and art should not be censored, you're still blaming her for the Saudi's treatment of women..

You are lucky she doesn't tell you to go and fuck yourself because frankly, that is what you deserved.

No, but Sam does. She uses it as a comparison. See the OP.

You mean to show that what was offensive was reprinted but an artistic photo was censored because her nipples and vagina might offend people?

No, but they had neither nudity nor real violence. (I can't recall if that bomb-head Mohammed was part of those or not.) As such, it would indeed be accurate to say that they did not cross our own social anxieties.

What do you think is more offensive? I'll give you an example. Images making fun and insulting your religious beliefs? Or an artistic photo of a girl used in a protest?

You've lost me here: how did censoring make that worse?

Because when the images were spoken of in some countries, they were added onto and misrepresented. And then they were censored. Which further inflamed the issue to make it look as if it was specifically to insult and abuse Muslims. I prefer frank and open discussion than back room deals.

I do think it was handled badly.

But that's just me.

Not in all milieus. And in which way are we 'heading into' this taboo? Appears more like inertia to me.

Adoucette comes to mind.

Another insult - shocka, really. As I said, has been done before, and I yawn at your implied threat above.

The point actually is that you would like to shut me up (some other mods have, in the past, had the same wet dream), and that you don't like it when I comment on some of your unbalanced behaviour, to the point that you go increasingly off the rails when we start arguing in earnest. And that's fine: we're well past the point at which I take you too seriously.

Do not fret GeoffP.

I have just been advised by a colleague that it is apparently acceptable for me to call members an "asshole", "pussy" and "dick", so long as it is in context.

Do I want to shut you up? No. I just think you are an "asshole" and a "dick". See, context! Wonderful isn't it? I find you to be a hateful bigot and a dishonest and backstabbing "asshole" who sees fit to mock and abuse people because they are ill, to mock and abuse people because of a near rape and you also see fit to mock and insult people's spouses and then complain when you are told to shut up.. Again, context. You really should thank Fraggle for this by the way.

In short, I see you as a waste of oxygen.

It is that simple.

And considering how you seem to respond to me more than I respond to you, assuming you are being stalked is a bit of a stretch. Half the time, I ignore you unless you fling yourself into a thread I am participating in or when you PM me and demand I look at a particular thread you are posting in. And when time goes by and I ignore you completely, you start threads like you did the last time. Get it now?

The episode with the boys in Australia makes me wonder why these boys hate women so much.
It wasn't a part of my boyhood, so what is different now?
Honestly, we were confused by them, attracted and repelled by them, a little afraid of them,
but we didn't hate them. How could things have gone so wrong?
As for the video, I don't want to watch it, or see images from it.

The second example you give, of the soldiers.
A terrible episode.
But I won't watch that either.
Would voyeurism on my part help matters?

Why should I fill my brain with images of violence and hatred?

Why should you indeed? Maybe that is something you should speak to your local media about?

The images and video from that girl's rape and torture were shown on national tv here. The boys got away with it and they boasted about it afterwards. It was a horrendous crime, but they got away with it. But it was shown here on TV. Yet, a girl's artistic nude photograph was censored. Go figure.

 

[wynn]

The opinions voiced in this thread does not surprise you?

Ask Signal what she thinks about victims of crime, be they children to adults, especially victims of sexual abuse and rape what she thinks about whether those victims share some of the responsibility for what was done to them. I dare you.

I started a thread for this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111096

 

[adoucette]

We are free, or we tell ourselves we are free. But that freedom is limited. I do not see the naked form as being offensive personally. This girl's photo is not pornographic but is actually quite artistic, which makes sense seeing she is protesting against the censorship of artistic expression and nudity in Egypt. Now Egypt being what it is, as you are well aware, rights of women are not equal to that of men. I personally consider this girl's protest to be very brave in the political light in which it was staged. But we censored it.

And there you are wrong.
Her image was not censored in the least.
You can see it just by going to her web site.
If it were censored you couldn't go see her site.

And instead of censoring the story quite the opposite occurred. Our media covered the story of her putting a nude picture of herself on a website because of her protesting artistic oppression in Egypt and our media covered the reasons she gave for doing this and our media provided links to her Web site should anyone want to see the actual protest pictures and yet you think there's something wrong with our media and culture because we didn't also put inline on our public media her actual nude pictures?

In other words it's not anything to do with censorship that galls you, but that our media didn't actively join in with her in her protest and publish her naked pictures from her web site on the front page of our papers.

 

[wynn]

In other words it's not anything to do with censorship that galls you, but that our media didn't actively join in with her in her protest and publish her naked picture from her web site on the front page of our papers.

Seconded.

 

[Gustav]

The fact that she has openly and repeatedly denounced the treatment of women by the followers of her religion and stated openly that it should not be up to men to decide what women wear and art should not be censored, you're still blaming her for the Saudi's treatment of women..

You are lucky she doesn't tell you to go and fuck yourself because frankly, that is what you deserved.

as does frag for this....

Note please that I have not stepped over the line and begun campaigning to make these images illegal, as Sam's people have done regarding certain cartoons.

...crap. i searched and found....

So, the solution is what? For Christians to tippy-toe around crybaby Muslims while Muslims offer no such sensitivity to western priorities?

~String

Like bombing and occupation?

I don't know the answer, but suggesting that I have the right to call your mother a dog is freedom of speech only goes so far.

Sure you can do it, make caricatures print and publish them and even throw bones at the mother to show how much freedom you have

But its not going to create any deep mutual understanding.

..that.
that indicates she supports the freedom of expression with regards to the cartoons despite certain misgivings. it is quite clear that frag disingenuously embarks on a sordid smear campaign.

 

[GeoffP]

Meaning SAM probably gets on a lot of nerves everywhere. Reminds me of the person I'm married to, a bit...

So...as I was describing this thread to the attack wife...she said "You mean, they get mad when she stereotypes them like we stereotype her?"

I said "Yup. Pretty much."
Do y'all disagree with that assessment?

Well, no.

I have a fair degree of personal experience with this notion, and I'm glad someone has finally brought it to the fore. The trend on SF in this area - among some posters, at least - is to treat any criticism of philosophy as an attack on a people, generally, or as the invocation of a stereotype. Criticize theocracy in Pakistan, say, and soon enough you have various posters - including mods - breathing down your neck as if you were generalizing. With some posters and some issues, there is certainly that drive, although the underlying reasons for that choice of narrative are never given, obviously.

But Sam is something of a conservative theist, and this is fairly well known. I don't accept the assertion that she's being gone after on basis of a stereotype: who is doing it? In what way do their arguments invoke such a stereotype? What constitutes this stereotype, and how does she fit within it, if so? It's not good to position the discussion in this manner, but you will certainly find those who willfully do it with malicious forethought, and in so doing, damage the forums. I think it best if we permit the ongoing criticism of philosophies, while I naturally agree that stereotyping is reprehensible. Let's be clear however that one is not the other until so proven.

 

[Bells]

Well, no.

I have a fair degree of personal experience with this notion, and I'm glad someone has finally brought it to the fore. The trend on SF in this area - among some posters, at least - is to treat any criticism of philosophy as an attack on a people, generally, or as the invocation of a stereotype. Criticize theocracy in Pakistan, say, and soon enough you have various posters - including mods - breathing down your neck as if you were generalizing. With some posters and some issues, there is certainly that drive, although the underlying reasons for that choice of narrative are never given, obviously.

But Sam is something of a conservative theist, and this is fairly well known. I don't accept the assertion that she's being gone after on basis of a stereotype: who is doing it? In what way do their arguments invoke such a stereotype? What constitutes this stereotype, and how does she fit within it, if so? It's not good to position the discussion in this manner, but you will certainly find those who willfully do it with malicious forethought, and in so doing, damage the forums. I think it best if we permit the ongoing criticism of philosophies, while I naturally agree that stereotyping is reprehensible. Let's be clear however that one is not the other until so proven.

Yes, because the Muslim woman who once posted a photo of herself in a bikini on this forum is what one would deem a "conservative" Muslim...

Not to mention discussing her sex life on this forum, etc. Because posing for photos in a bikini and posting it online is what conservative Muslim women do apparently. Don't strain yourself while stretching there GeoffP.

 

[GeoffP]

In my opinion

The opinions voiced in this thread does not surprise you?

Ask Signal what she thinks about victims of crime, be they children to adults, especially victims of sexual abuse and rape what she thinks about whether those victims share some of the responsibility for what was done to them. I dare you.

Well, according to forum etiquette, I cannot do so until you double-dog dare me. But which post in this thread are you referring to? Or which thread? In any event, what I was asking for was some high representation of such a view as a majority or plurality.

Your wife is lucky. Because since then, there has been a push against breastfeeding in public. Surely you are not unaware of this?

There have been countless discussions about the very issue here on this forum for example.

I surely am unaware of this, and I see public breastfeeding happen not infrequently. In which nation do you mean this?

We are free, or we tell ourselves we are free. But that freedom is limited.

Naturally. Only a fool would think any person or society completely free. But I think 'the West' stands as something of a marker of a quite free society. At least in the depiction of nudes in the media we are probably equal, unless some newspaper has permitted the publication of male genitalia in a display of protest.

I think we were a bit more open than what we are now.

Now instead we get the 'think of the children' argument when anything regarding nudity comes into play.

Well, I remain open to your evidences. I have certainly heard the 'think of the children' argument, but I find that this anxiety injects itself more into their freedoms to play and to partake in risky or seemingly risky behaviour. No more ice sliding at recess, helmets on at all times, no horseplay, and so forth. When I was a kid, one kid would piggyback on another's back and we would have 'knight fights', with one kid-and-horse pair trying to dislodge the other. People threw snowballs at school. If a kid got cross-checked in hockey, he'd just cross-check the kid back. Now it's 'run to the coach'. I suppose there has been some increase in nudity-related anxiety but I think it would be hard to separate from the background or identify meaningfully.

Because of the irony of the West portraying itself as free and open and liberal and what the Western media did was to censor an artistic nude photograph of a young woman who posted the image as a protest against her country's crackdown against artistic expression and women in general. And she is right, it is hypocritical.

Possibly, but not vis-a-vis the status of women. Male nude protests aren't in the paper either. Now, as far as it goes, the West is certainly more free than numerous other places, and probably most other societies. Nonetheless, if you have evidence to the contrary, I will certainly hear it.

She is committed to her religion as you are committed to yours.

I don't find myself very terribly committed to it, or not so committed that I criticize other societies on basis thereof.

It is easy to demand certain responses from her because of her religion. It is also easy to blame all that is wrong on her because of her religious beliefs.

Well, she's a religious conservative who idolizes the likes of Mawdudi and thinks that might makes right when it comes to the treatment of religious minorities, except Islamic minorities. That strikes me as a little wrong at the very least. It's like pointing out nice things about a Nazi: sure, Hitler made the trains run on time, but I would be remiss not to wonder about the basis of the criticisms of Israel by a Nazi apologist, say.

What irks people about Sam is that she points out the hypocrisy of their argument, so of course, people view her as believing her religious belief is superior.

Well, then, it might be appropriate for the irked Sam to mention, in passing at least, that the society under her critique is probably better off in that regard, say, than the society from which the protest originates and concerns. Sort of like throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater.

The fact that she has openly and repeatedly denounced the treatment of women by the followers of her religion and stated openly that it should not be up to men to decide what women wear and art should not be censored, you're still blaming her for the Saudi's treatment of women..

I'm hardly blaming her for the treatment of women by Islamists, Bells. Neither do I recall that her refutation of conservative Islamic thought on feminism and emancipation has been so thorough as you seem to be asserting. I do occasionally hold up a mirror to her own society and ask "are you really so sure about all that?" as a recommendation to look inward first. Sometimes I do so quite tartly. It's the risk of hypocrisy.

You are lucky she doesn't tell you to go and fuck yourself because frankly, that is what you deserved.

Well, ditto for the both of you, I guess. :shrug:

You mean to show that what was offensive was reprinted but an artistic photo was censored because her nipples and vagina might offend people?

Is that Sam's point?

What do you think is more offensive? I'll give you an example. Images making fun and insulting your religious beliefs? Or an artistic photo of a girl used in a protest?

You assume those pictures were just about insult? Their sole purpose to your mind was to inflame opinion?

Because when the images were spoken of in some countries, they were added onto and misrepresented.

Ironically, by religious reactionaries, who objected to them in the first place.

And then they were censored. Which further inflamed the issue to make it look as if it was specifically to insult and abuse Muslims. I prefer frank and open discussion than back room deals.

The last statement being of dubious veracity, I must ask again: who censored the pictures, and how did that inflame the issue? Or do you mean the editing done by selfsame religious reactionaries? And is that censoring?

Adoucette comes to mind.

Well, that's one individual. Have you more with which to complete the set? And in which way is he cracking down on your nudie rights? Whom does he represent?

Do not fret GeoffP.

I have just been advised by a colleague that it is apparently acceptable for me to call members an "asshole", "pussy" and "dick", so long as it is in context.

Do I want to shut you up? No. I just think you are an "asshole" and a "dick". See, context! Wonderful isn't it? I find you to be a hateful bigot and a dishonest and backstabbing "asshole" who sees fit to mock and abuse people because they are ill, to mock and abuse people because of a near rape and you also see fit to mock and insult people's spouses and then complain when you are told to shut up.. Again, context. You really should thank Fraggle for this by the way.

I certainly will. One of the many ways in which you and Fraggle differ is that he appears to be more honest, and forthright, and also not clinically insane. Similarly divergent from you, he is not a demonstrable religious bigot and racist, nor a viciously opportunistic liar, nor so ignorant of human discourse as to make one wonder whether or not he should be equipped with a bib and a pacifier. Nor has he suddenly discovered outrage in what he previous did not find outrageous, for reasons he knows quite well. I would speculate that you ought to feel ashamed, but I don't believe you are capable of the emotion...all of the above being, of course, in my opinion.

Just my opinion, you understand. I am not responsible for the overlaying of those common insults with utter, absolute fact - why, if indeed, they so do.

I wonder in what way that 'backstabbing' differed from yours. Excepting that I've always thought you were a poor mod, or at least once your behavioural problems (in my opinion) started up.

In short, I see you as a waste of oxygen.

It is that simple.

Strangely, I don't recall asking your opinion of me, personally. It would be rather like asking a pet that likes to make stains on the rug what it thinks of my corrective influences...in my opinion. Care to get back onto the actual discussion now, instead of your adolescent fantasies about passive-aggressive punishment? (In my opinion.)

And considering how you seem to respond to me more than I respond to you, assuming you are being stalked is a bit of a stretch. Half the time, I ignore you unless you fling yourself into a thread I am participating in or when you PM me and demand I look at a particular thread you are posting in. And when time goes by and I ignore you completely, you start threads like you did the last time. Get it now?

I do get that your "stalkiness" extends into a number of areas, including unsolicited PM and public attacks, despite not infrequent disavowals of me - one per season, I think is the trend, with some blips here and there. Yet you keep coming back. Perhaps someone has a secret, if freakish crush...in my opinion.

Yes, because the Muslim woman who once posted a photo of herself in a bikini on this forum is what one would deem a "conservative" Muslim...

Not to mention discussing her sex life on this forum, etc. Because posing for photos in a bikini and posting it online is what conservative Muslim women do apparently. Don't strain yourself while stretching there GeoffP.

Hehe. You are perhaps familiar, if only in passing from watching Sesame Street (in my opinion) of the concept of NIMBY or hypocrisy? Don't strain yourself rubbing those two brain cells together.

In my opinion.

 

[adoucette]

Yes, because the Muslim woman who once posted a photo of herself in a bikini on this forum is what one would deem a "conservative" Muslim...

How do you know the pictures were of her?

How do you know SAM is a her?

(I thought she said she was a robot of some sort)

 

[Bells]

Well, according to forum etiquette, I cannot do so until you double-dog dare me. But which post in this thread are you referring to? Or which thread? In any event, what I was asking for was some high representation of such a view as a majority or plurality.

Double dog dare!

I surely am unaware of this, and I see public breastfeeding happen not infrequently. In which nation do you mean this?

Pretty much in many places in the "West" Geoff.

You don't get out much, do you?

Naturally. Only a fool would think any person or society completely free. But I think 'the West' stands as something of a marker of a quite free society. At least in the depiction of nudes in the media we are probably equal, unless some newspaper has permitted the publication of male genitalia in a display of protest.

I find it hypocritical.

Well, I remain open to your evidences. I have certainly heard the 'think of the children' argument, but I find that this anxiety injects itself more into their freedoms to play and to partake in risky or seemingly risky behaviour. No more ice sliding at recess, helmets on at all times, no horseplay, and so forth. When I was a kid, one kid would piggyback on another's back and we would have 'knight fights', with one kid-and-horse pair trying to dislodge the other. People threw snowballs at school. If a kid got cross-checked in hockey, he'd just cross-check the kid back. Now it's 'run to the coach'. I suppose there has been some increase in nudity-related anxiety but I think it would be hard to separate from the background or identify meaningfully.

The think of the children was even more evident during the Perry and Sesame Street issue. More along the lines of "her tits and cleavage are bouncing.. think of the children"..

Possibly, but not vis-a-vis the status of women. Male nude protests aren't in the paper either. Now, as far as it goes, the West is certainly more free than numerous other places, and probably most other societies. Nonetheless, if you have evidence to the contrary, I will certainly hear it.

What male nude protests?

There are people here who are offended that she protested in this fashion, against a Government that is very, shall we say, restrictive in the first place. I think she is exceptionally brave considering the political and religious climate in which she lives. And I think support should have been given by not censoring those images when the Western media decided to reprint them. I think doing so demeans and belittles the very point she is trying to make against a very restrictive Government and religion for that matter.

I don't find myself very terribly committed to it, or not so committed that I criticize other societies on basis thereof.

Right. So you never criticise Muslims or Islamic societies or their religion?

*Snort*

Well, she's a religious conservative who idolizes the likes of Mawdudi and thinks that might makes right when it comes to the treatment of religious minorities, except Islamic minorities. That strikes me as a little wrong at the very least. It's like pointing out nice things about a Nazi: sure, Hitler made the trains run on time, but I would be remiss not to wonder about the basis of the criticisms of Israel by a Nazi apologist, say.

Ah yes, evoking the Nazi rule. Weak Geoff. Very weak and very predictable of you.

I have had many run-ins with Sam and I am yet to witness her being a religious conservative.

Well, then, it might be appropriate for the irked Sam to mention, in passing at least, that the society under her critique is probably better off in that regard, say, than the society from which the protest originates and concerns. Sort of like throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater.

We aren't any better though. We just tell ourselves we are better because we are conceited and must be better at everything. If we were better, we would not torture, kill and imprison people without charge or reason.

I'm hardly blaming her for the treatment of women by Islamists, Bells. Neither do I recall that her refutation of conservative Islamic thought on feminism and emancipation has been so thorough as you seem to be asserting. I do occasionally hold up a mirror to her own society and ask "are you really so sure about all that?" as a recommendation to look inward first. Sometimes I do so quite tartly. It's the risk of hypocrisy.

Oh please Geoff. Who do you think you are fooling here?

Well, ditto for the both of you, I guess.

Oh no, I feel that sentiment each time I read half of what you say. I'm thinking it right now.

Is that Sam's point?

You missed that central memo? Oh wait, my bad. You were too busy trying to hang the Muslim for criticising your society.

You assume those pictures were just about insult? Their sole purpose to your mind was to inflame opinion?

Which do you think Geoff?

The last statement being of dubious veracity, I must ask again: who censored the pictures, and how did that inflame the issue? Or do you mean the editing done by selfsame religious reactionaries? And is that censoring?

The media Geoff.

We know this debate. I don't agree with how it was handled at all. I think the Imams involved in adding to the images and making them more offensive have a lot to answer for. I have stated that in many threads discussing the issue.

Well, that's one individual. Have you more with which to complete the set? And in which way is he cracking down on your nudie rights? Whom does he represent?

A section of society Geoff.

Why do you think the images were blurred?

I certainly will. One of the many ways in which you and Fraggle differ is that he appears to be more honest, and forthright, and also not clinically insane. Similarly divergent from you, he is not a demonstrable religious bigot and racist, nor a viciously opportunistic liar, nor so ignorant of human discourse as to make one wonder whether or not he should be equipped with a bib and a pacifier. Nor has he suddenly discovered outrage in what he previous did not find outrageous, for reasons he knows quite well. I would speculate that you ought to feel ashamed, but I don't believe you are capable of the emotion...all of the above being, of course, in my opinion.

Just my opinion, you understand. I am not responsible for the overlaying of those common insults with utter, absolute fact - why, if indeed, they so do.

I wonder in what way that 'backstabbing' differed from yours. Excepting that I've always thought you were a poor mod, or at least once your behavioural problems (in my opinion) started up.

Feel ashamed of what? Being PM'ed by you and insulted and abused for having cancer and not responding to what you demanded I responded to immediately, even though I explained to you why I was not really available? Or should I feel ashamed when you repeatedly made fun of my being nearly raped?

Don't portray yourself as the victim Geoff. You and I both know that your behaviour has been far from perfect. In fact, my reaction to you is because you are you. As for Fraggle.. you know, it is unfortunate that I actually cannot re-print some of what he has said. Don't let the kindly old man face fool you. His views on her religion and yours are disturbing to say the least.

Strangely, I don't recall asking your opinion of me, personally. It would be rather like asking a pet that likes to make stains on the rug what it thinks of my corrective influences...in my opinion. Care to get back onto the actual discussion now, instead of your adolescent fantasies about passive-aggressive punishment? (In my opinion.)

I'm supposed to care what you ask for? What? Going to PM me and swear at me for being sick again or attack my marriage again? That is what you do, isn't it?

I do get that your "stalkiness" extends into a number of areas, including unsolicited PM and public attacks, despite not infrequent disavowals of me - one per season, I think is the trend, with some blips here and there. Yet you keep coming back. Perhaps someone has a secret, if freakish crush...in my opinion.

Ah yes. The stalkiness. Suffice to say that when I ignore you, you go out of your way to demand I respond to you and when I do not, you find something to PM me to ask me to respond and then get shitty when I tell you to go away. Or like when you demand I continue the "argument" we constantly have via PM and then act as if it was somehow unsolicited. Don't flatter yourself Geoff. You place yourself in positions where you demand I respond and then whine when I do. You do it time and again. It has rarely ever been the other way around. The one thing I miss about being a member is that I could actually keep you on ignore.

Hehe. You are perhaps familiar, if only in passing from watching Sesame Street (in my opinion) of the concept of NIMBY or hypocrisy? Don't strain yourself rubbing those two brain cells together.

In my opinion.

How can I put this?

Oh yes..

[Insert swear word here]

*Ignore*

 

[Asguard]

Bells when you say there is a push against breast feeding in public are you talking Australia or other countries and if Australia do you mean selected red necks (Jones, Bolt ect), public at large, media or government. The reason I ask is that I was under the impression that most of our states either had or were moving to specifically listing breast feeding as a protected act and class, currently i belive its concidered to be a part of the anti discrimination against women and the anti discrimination against parents legislation but I thought it was becoming its own set of legislation to further make apsolutly clear that a child has a right to eat (after all, its not a women's rights issue or a gender issue, its a rights of the child issue, just as we all have a right to eat even in public so does a child)

 

[Hellenologophobia]

“Indeed, nude protests have many advantages. They don't cost anything, and they have enormous symbolic power. The protestor does nothing more than pose naked in bed, on a lawn or in a public place. The authorities, however, have to use force or bureaucratic power to stop them. It is never the naked protestor who appears ridiculous -- no matter what shape their body is in -- but the oppressive authorities. A system that has to mobilize men in uniform to stop someone from posing in their birthday suit has a problem. Nude protests allow those in a position of weakness to show strength. And who doesn't root for the underdog?”

Around the World, Protesters Bare All for a Cause

Virginity Tests for Egyptian Women Protesters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity_and_protest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_non-sexual_social_nudity