Skip to main content

View Diary: Muslim Cartoon Controversy: What the Media Isn't Telling You (358 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks (none)
    You have just proved the point
    •  What did he prove? (none)
      It is not banned, just objectionable (very).

      And unless Ornagebeard has just run out to burn something down, I do not think you have the equivalency you are seeking.

      •  His anger suggests... (none)
        that something as simple as a word can rightly make someone else feel very much offended.

        If a word, why not a cartoon?  Why is OB's anger acceptable, and not that of a Muslim (or Christian or atheist) who finds these cartoons unneccessary, if not offensive?

        Double standards = hypocrisy.  OB doesn't need to burn down anything to be upset - he has a right to be upset if he chooses to be, and we aren't trying to shut him up with cries of 'let free speech ring!'

        So why are we doing that with the Danish 'cartoons'?

        "The last thing people want is an opposition party vigorously opposing things." - jasonwhat

        by the new yorker on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:54:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The argument is not about (none)
          "upset" or "offended"

          It is about how that anger is displayed.

          I do not see any hypocrisy in OB, I see failed moral equivalency - being offended by "n" word and rioting, burning and calls for mass murder are not equal.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site