South park creators mock Muhammed, infuriate muslim.
- Thread starter Sock puppet path
- Start date
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Wednesday's 201st episode saw any spoken references to Muhammad bleeped out, while a prominent banner stating "censored" was used in the programme.
The images of the prophet in a bear outfit were substituted with Santa Claus in the same costume.
Speaking in an interview with the Boing Boing website before the 200th show aired, the South Park team defended the scenes.
"We'd be so hypocritical against our own message, our own thoughts, if we said, 'okay, well let's not make fun of them because they won't hurt us,'" said Parker.
"It matters to me when we talk about Muhammad that I can say we did this... and I can stand behind that," Stone added.
"I don't think it's going to change the world, but this is how it's got to be for our show."
In 2006, Comedy Central banned Stone and Parker from showing an image of Muhammad in an episode that was intended to be part of a comment on the controversy caused by the publication of caricatures of the prophet by a Danish newspaper.
An earlier episode, Super-Best Friends (2001), contained an image of Muhammad but passed without comment.
"It was before the Danish cartoon controversy, so it somehow is fine," Stone told Boing Boing.
"Then, after that, now that's the new normal. We lost. Something that was okay is now not okay."
Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous. The caricatures published in Denmark sparked mass protests worldwide.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm
Syzygys: How have they had this coming?
The images of the prophet in a bear outfit were substituted with Santa Claus in the same costume.
Speaking in an interview with the Boing Boing website before the 200th show aired, the South Park team defended the scenes.
"We'd be so hypocritical against our own message, our own thoughts, if we said, 'okay, well let's not make fun of them because they won't hurt us,'" said Parker.
"It matters to me when we talk about Muhammad that I can say we did this... and I can stand behind that," Stone added.
"I don't think it's going to change the world, but this is how it's got to be for our show."
In 2006, Comedy Central banned Stone and Parker from showing an image of Muhammad in an episode that was intended to be part of a comment on the controversy caused by the publication of caricatures of the prophet by a Danish newspaper.
An earlier episode, Super-Best Friends (2001), contained an image of Muhammad but passed without comment.
"It was before the Danish cartoon controversy, so it somehow is fine," Stone told Boing Boing.
"Then, after that, now that's the new normal. We lost. Something that was okay is now not okay."
Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous. The caricatures published in Denmark sparked mass protests worldwide.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm
Syzygys: How have they had this coming?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Well if one is pissed off then one is already offended, but what have they done that warrants a death threat?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Is having a prophet dressed as a bear on a cartoon show enough to 'piss someone off'? Wouldn't it seem that the one who is 'pissed' is unreasonably hypersensitive? I mean when someone is unreasonably hypersensitive then anything anyone does anywhere even if its within their own boundaries can ignite them with what they perceive to be an offense. Should SPk or any other show, creators, artists and thinkers etc walk on eggshells and self-censor just in case they offend any one of the other 6 billion inhabitants on the planet? If your answer is yes then how will the creators of SPk continue to entertain with their show? If muslims are allowed to censor the show then shouldn't also the christians? And celebrities? And the Ginger people? Cripples? Fat folk? Blacks? Gays?
Apparently. Never heard of Rushdi or the Danish cartoonist???
I will explain the bottomline: Fuck with fundy Muslims only if you don't mind to live in protective costudy for the next 2 decades...
Clear now?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Yeah I know about the others but my question really is whether you think these people should censor themselves or defend their right to express themselves via the arts by defying the fundies? Is the right to freedom of expression, which is protected in the west, now under the jurisdiction of others who are either minorities in the West or who live in another country all together? Should we curtail our own freedoms to appease this group?
Only if you value your life...
One person's entertainment/joke is another person's sacrilege... You can live according to YOUR standards, just don't be surprised if it is not a standard for everyone. It isn't really a moral question, more of a common sense thingy. Freedom of expression is fine, respecting (or at least not offending) other people's beliefs/behaviour/appereance/taste is better...
Here is the common sense approach to South Park creators: We can fuck with the Amish, and they might shun us. But we shouldn't fuck with the Muslims because they might blow us up...
P.S.: Freedom of expression is NOT an objective ethical rule, so referring to it is well, short-sighted...
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
I never said it was an objective ethical rule but its interesting that you think those who create in the West should censor themselves in order to appease those who do not live in the West nor respect its values.
I'm beginning to respect muslims more and more, we bomb them and they resist because there are things they value more than their life, freedom from the west being one of them. Yet the West can re-shape its values in order to 'spare their lives'. Interesting, very interesting.
To note: the Swedish cartoonist and most of those on the fundie hit list refuse to apologize nor recant their original material, which is why the Danish cartoons were re-printed in other newspapers around Europe out of solidarity.
Let's change the set up slightly, and also let's assume you are American.
What is the most sacred thing for Americans? The military and 9/11. So let's say the South Park boys make cruel fun of the events of 9/11 and the victims. It is pretty safe to assume that they would get death threats from patriot Americans. Would you defend them and freedom of expression the same way as you do against Muslims???
See, it is not as funny when it hit too close to home...
And my point was that sometimes common sense overrides one's values....
What is the most sacred thing for Americans? The military and 9/11. So let's say the South Park boys make cruel fun of the events of 9/11 and the victims. It is pretty safe to assume that they would get death threats from patriot Americans. Would you defend them and freedom of expression the same way as you do against Muslims???
See, it is not as funny when it hit too close to home...
And my point was that sometimes common sense overrides one's values....
And that is the crux of the problem. Be an ethical coward keep your mouth shut at perceived stupidity and injustice and accept violence as a form of protest. Where does that lead?
As you said they have pissed alot of people off but they all reacted within the constraints of what we deem as civil/acceptable behaviour. Lowering the bar for certain groups is counterproductive bigotry (Those people aren't as civil as us so we need to make an exception).
People do, there are truthers all over the place how many have been murdered?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Right now I am trying to think but they have made fun on the war of terror in 'Imaginationland', I cannot recall if they ever did anything directly concerning the twin towers per se. And they have had spoofs on Afghanistan and muslim's being profiled because of 9/11. But just for your arguments sake let's us say they create an episode that takes the piss on 9/11 and the military (which I believe they already have) yes I would defend their freedom of expression.
I am not saying you have to agree with me on this subject. I was just curious as to how far you believe society has to go in order to appease another. For example should all abortion clinics be shut down and abortion rights lost because there have been assassinations of abortion practitioners? If it continues should society change their values to appease the religious right?
Another way to look at it is to ask yourself when should society refuse to succumb to extortion. I don't like censorship brought on by fear. We have laws that stipulate you are not allowed to burn the cross, does this also mean that Madonna's video 'without a prayer' shouldn't be viewed? Or that it should never be shot in a scene for a movie? Does it mean that no one can write it into a novel? This is exactly what has happened with these threats concerning muslim fundies. They are attempting to curtail our freedoms for their own interest which is to stop all criticism of Islam.
How much of your social values will you give up in order to appease another group who in truth are thugs?
*I'm beginning to understand the reasons behind 'we do not negotiate with terrorists'*
To protective custody. It really doesn't matter who is right (technically speaking nobody) but who does what. You offend me, I kill you, simple as it is.
Here, let's have another approach. Let's look at the SP boys as intellectual bullies. They bullied just about everyone. Then someone stands up to them and might blow their heads off, sending a pretty strong message.
Again, the legality of the sides are rather irrelevant, it is the willingness what counts...
To protective custody. It really doesn't matter who is right (technically speaking nobody) but who does what. You offend me, I kill you, simple as it is.
Here, let's have another approach. Let's look at the SP boys as intellectual bullies. They bullied just about everyone. Then someone stands up to them and might blow their heads off, sending a pretty strong message.
Again, the legality of the sides are rather irrelevant, it is the willingness what counts...
>>Lowering the bar for certain groups ...
Since there is no objective ethics, you can not say YOu are lowering the standards. The Muslims can say just as well that the Westerners lowered the standards and they would be just as correct...
That is not the same.The war on terror is laughable, and should be ridiculed but no American dare to cruelly joke about 9/11...
Perfectly fine, I just wouldn't be surprised if their office got bombed by patriots... We make choices in life all the time, they made theirs...
I am not really taking a stand in this whole affair, rather explaining that sometimes you have to act against your values because it makes more sense, or it helps you to survive.
Let's say you are vegetarian and on an island only goats are aviable as food. you either starve to death or eat meat. Pretty simple as the bottomline is your survival or your value...
let's have another example of appeasement. The US likes to overthrow governments and install its own. Just how far foreign countries have to go in order to appease the American government's wishes??
See? Life is full of compromises...
No. But on the other hand if I were an abortion doctor in the South I would think twice about suspending my practice because my life is more important for me than my values.
The other important distinction is that we are talking about 2 different societies and not inside one country.
Are you asking me as an Afghan citizen who just succumbed to the American government's wishes??? I want to grow what we decide is the best for us, not what foreigners tell us we should...
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill
Mill is talking of war here, but the quote remains applicable to ideological conflict.
If you would bow to the demands of others who dictate how you should act, or how you should not, then prepare for a life spent with a filthy forehead and an intimate knowledge of what dirt looks like.
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
@Syzygys
In terms of your example of 9/11 are you suggesting that there was an inherently cruelty towards muslims in the SPk episode?
Syzygys: I am not really taking a stand in this whole affair, rather explaining that sometimes you have to act against your values because it makes more sense, or it helps you to survive.
No I understand that but the SPk guys are not going to change the attitude of muslim fundies by censoring their next episode nor will it protect them if say random scientologists begin making similar threats because it worked for Muslims. In short I believe that to negotiate on such points undermines their entire raison d'etre which is to provide cutting social, cultural and political satire.
And its probably why they made the following comments:
"We'd be so hypocritical against our own message, our own thoughts, if we said, 'okay, well let's not make fun of them because they won't hurt us,'" said Parker.
"It matters to me when we talk about Muhammad that I can say we did this... and I can stand behind that," Stone added.
"I don't think it's going to change the world, but this is how it's got to be for our show."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm
One could even question if censoring their following episode will really make any difference whatsoever. The Danish cartoonist four years after the initial threat was attacked and still lives under protection. Same for Rushdie and the others. There is no expiration date on these killing orders.
Syzygys: No. But on the other hand if I were an abortion doctor in the South I would think twice about suspending my practice because my life is more important for me than my values.
And what I find interesting is that artists continue to practice their freedoms just as abortionists still carry out the procedure. The author Sherri Jones who wrote the book Aisha, which drew concerns from Random House led to their decision not to publish the work because of fundie threats, but she didn't give up on the book. Jones simply found a UK publishing house willing to go with the material. European newspapers re-printed the cartoons in solidarity to show that they will not be brow beaten or threatened into self-censorship. They assert themselves in face of these threats. Similarly SPk creators knew the risks of showing mohammed yet they went ahead and pursued it anyway. They have been playing with it for a long time and now they took it one step further. Surely if they were solely influenced by their 'personal survival' they would simply not have broached the issue. We should also remember that all the people who have been on the death list are also all still alive.
I don't really understand your example of a vegetarian eating meat to survive since these are not cases of people acting in order to 'survive'. These people are thriving not surviving and would continue to thrive even if they had showed the prophet's face even if it means security measures. Most people in the limelight will need a certain measure of security from stalkers and weirdos anyway.
Syzygys: The other important distinction is that we are talking about 2 different societies and not inside one country.
I disagree. We are not talking about any society we are talking about fundamentalism and christian fundamentalism that says one needs to kill in the name of ones god is no different than muslim fundamentalism. Hindu fundamentalist who went to Ayodhya to tear down a mosque thousands of years old because they felt it an affront to a hindu temple that was there beforehand, killing many people in the process, are also no different than the Taliban shooting up an ancient old Buddhist monument because they felt it as an affront to Allah. Question is how far do we allow these fundies to set the agenda in a secular society.
Syzygys: Are you asking me as an Afghan citizen who just succumbed to the American government's wishes???
No, I am asking you. Fuck them, I'm not interested in what fundamentalists or people living outside of the West think about secular society in the West. I am asking YOU:
How much of your social values will you give up in order to appease another group who in truth are thugs?
In terms of your example of 9/11 are you suggesting that there was an inherently cruelty towards muslims in the SPk episode?
Syzygys: I am not really taking a stand in this whole affair, rather explaining that sometimes you have to act against your values because it makes more sense, or it helps you to survive.
No I understand that but the SPk guys are not going to change the attitude of muslim fundies by censoring their next episode nor will it protect them if say random scientologists begin making similar threats because it worked for Muslims. In short I believe that to negotiate on such points undermines their entire raison d'etre which is to provide cutting social, cultural and political satire.
And its probably why they made the following comments:
"We'd be so hypocritical against our own message, our own thoughts, if we said, 'okay, well let's not make fun of them because they won't hurt us,'" said Parker.
"It matters to me when we talk about Muhammad that I can say we did this... and I can stand behind that," Stone added.
"I don't think it's going to change the world, but this is how it's got to be for our show."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm
One could even question if censoring their following episode will really make any difference whatsoever. The Danish cartoonist four years after the initial threat was attacked and still lives under protection. Same for Rushdie and the others. There is no expiration date on these killing orders.
Syzygys: No. But on the other hand if I were an abortion doctor in the South I would think twice about suspending my practice because my life is more important for me than my values.
And what I find interesting is that artists continue to practice their freedoms just as abortionists still carry out the procedure. The author Sherri Jones who wrote the book Aisha, which drew concerns from Random House led to their decision not to publish the work because of fundie threats, but she didn't give up on the book. Jones simply found a UK publishing house willing to go with the material. European newspapers re-printed the cartoons in solidarity to show that they will not be brow beaten or threatened into self-censorship. They assert themselves in face of these threats. Similarly SPk creators knew the risks of showing mohammed yet they went ahead and pursued it anyway. They have been playing with it for a long time and now they took it one step further. Surely if they were solely influenced by their 'personal survival' they would simply not have broached the issue. We should also remember that all the people who have been on the death list are also all still alive.
I don't really understand your example of a vegetarian eating meat to survive since these are not cases of people acting in order to 'survive'. These people are thriving not surviving and would continue to thrive even if they had showed the prophet's face even if it means security measures. Most people in the limelight will need a certain measure of security from stalkers and weirdos anyway.
Syzygys: The other important distinction is that we are talking about 2 different societies and not inside one country.
I disagree. We are not talking about any society we are talking about fundamentalism and christian fundamentalism that says one needs to kill in the name of ones god is no different than muslim fundamentalism. Hindu fundamentalist who went to Ayodhya to tear down a mosque thousands of years old because they felt it an affront to a hindu temple that was there beforehand, killing many people in the process, are also no different than the Taliban shooting up an ancient old Buddhist monument because they felt it as an affront to Allah. Question is how far do we allow these fundies to set the agenda in a secular society.
Syzygys: Are you asking me as an Afghan citizen who just succumbed to the American government's wishes???
No, I am asking you. Fuck them, I'm not interested in what fundamentalists or people living outside of the West think about secular society in the West. I am asking YOU:
How much of your social values will you give up in order to appease another group who in truth are thugs?
Last edited:
People do that all the time since the stoneage. The stronger ALWAYS have been telling to the weaker how and what to do....
Welcome to the real world...
Hey, I can make up examples all night long, so here is one:
Let's say your GF's brother doesn't like you (for whatever reason) and tell you to get lost. Now, you could decide to pursue the girl and suffer the consequences (that could be even death) or try to find another girl...
Your choice....
P.S.: "I know lots of people with great values. They are all dead."