| Pages:
1
2 |
Jason the Magnificent
Posting Freak
Posts: 3880
Registered: 8-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Someone remind me again...what planet are we on?
http://www.wwtdd.com/2010/04/matt-and-trey-might-be-murdered...
|
|
|
Mark Lind
Posting Freak
Posts: 1900
Registered: 9-18-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
Well I agree that what they're doing is stupid but not for the same reasons that the website implied. All religion is nonsense in my opinion. But to
use the Mohammed character in their show when they know it's a hot-button, controversial issue is stupid. The truth is that they could end up dead
because of it. It's just not worth that kind of publicity to me. Again, I really think religion is dumb. But we gotta realize that not everyone lives
in America where nothing is taboo and everything is fair game. I hope nothing happens to them.
|
|
|
BDx13
|
|
i love when people say "this isn't a threat" and then proceed to make a, you know... threat.
If I fail math, there goes my chance at a good job and a happy life full of hard work.
|
|
|
DaveMoral
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
We live on a planet of 6 billion people and there are plenty of people that take serious offense to others insulting what and who they consider
sacred. For many people there are "fighting words" and those words are for many insults to religion. Matt and Trey went into making this knowing full
well what they are doing and getting themselves into.
It's fucked up, and I disagree with threatening violence and death in particular over this kind of ignorance. I disagree with Mark on the religion
topic, obviously, but I agree with him that people need to be more conscious and take the notion of "freedom of expression" with the responsibilities
that come with it. I think we have a responsibility to exercise our freedoms in such a way that doesn't cause harm to individuals or society... and
frankly, desecration of people's sacred things and personages is a form of hate speech. In this case, it encourages a particular perception of Muslims
and our sacred personages and furthermore, Matt and Trey did this particular stunt specifically to stir some shit. They are actively encouraging the
worst representatives of the worldwide Muslim community to come out and use their hate speech, thereby continuing the particular image that
Islamophobes want to be THE image of Islam and Muslims.
|
|
|
Jason the Magnificent
Posting Freak
Posts: 3880
Registered: 8-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
It's a cycle of nonsense on everyone's part.
I in no way posted this to get another long winded religious debate going here. More so just to say what the fuck is wrong with ALL of us.
This whole thing seems like we're at the tail end of a failed experiment.
|
|
|
gavin
Posting Freak
Posts: 3973
Registered: 1-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaveMoral
I agree with him that people need to be more conscious and take the notion of "freedom of expression" with the responsibilities that come with it. I
think we have a responsibility to exercise our freedoms in such a way that doesn't cause harm to individuals or society... and frankly, desecration of
people's sacred things and personages is a form of hate speech. |
are you for real?
seriously
you seem like an ok guy
but some of the shit you say is just.....
if this was the case, there would be no art whatsoever
someone, somewhere is going to be offended by everything or anything
if everyone " exercise our freedoms in such a way that doesn't cause harm to individuals or society" there would be nothing!
no movies
no books
no music
no art
no nothing
think about it man
you come at the king....you best not miss
|
|
|
Jason the Magnificent
Posting Freak
Posts: 3880
Registered: 8-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Somebody hacked the hell out of that website apparently. I'll save D the headache of linking it here (my tin foil hat keeps me warm) but I'm sure
everyone knows how to work the internet. Just saw it on the 9er on a thread on the same subject.
The cycle continues.
|
|
|
Mark Lind
Posting Freak
Posts: 1900
Registered: 9-18-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
I watched the episode of South Park tonight (or at least Part 1). Did you guys watch it yet? The entire premise is that, while it is out-of-bounds for
some people to offend the masses, it's perfectly acceptable for South Park. Some times I think we're too self centered as a nation. To echo what I
said earlier, just because we think it's ok in the US doesn't mean EVERYONE agrees with that. A good portion of the world sees us as a cesspool of
immoral waste. The episode is clearly trying to pick a fight with these people and they just might get one. They can do what they want - they're
obviously free to do so - but I don't think anyone should be shocked if some militant really did put one of them in a body bag.
|
|
|
barc0debaby
Posting Freak
Posts: 2138
Registered: 3-18-2006
Location: My mom's basement
Member Is Offline
Mood: Punk as Fuck
|
|
I love South Park and completely approve of what they are doing. I don't think it is stupid at all, they are using their platform as a beacon of
social commentary. They would be completely irresponsible if they felt that a situation i.e. the archaic beliefs surrounding the profit Muhammad.
The fact that people are so upset about them not even showing Muhammad goes to reinforce my beliefs that evolution has sadly left these people in the
stone age.
[img]A good portion of the world sees us as a cesspool of immoral waste[/img]
A good portion of the world is uncivilized fuckin cavemen so their point is moot. I was just reading a story the other day about a 13 Yemini girl who
spent four days bleeding to death when her arranged husband busted her hymn. The fact is just like there are a lot of stupid people in America, a
good portion of the world is still just a bunch of ignorant savages.
The only thing that hurts the perception of Muslims is Muslims. You don't want me looking at you funny the airport, don't hijack planes. You don't
want me laughing at Joe Rogan jihad jokes stop bastardizing the word. While I certainly don't think that every single Muslim is a terrorist enough of
them are that somebody needs to say something. Just like not every priest gets sucked off by little boys, but enough of them do to make it a serious
issue.
I'm sure Trey and Matt can afford quality security and hopefully if any attempts are made on them, their retarded Jihadist assailants will get two in
the chest and one in the head.
|
|
|
newbreedbrian
Posting Freak
Posts: 2616
Registered: 9-2-2004
Location: Hell
Member Is Offline
Mood: doc watson
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gavin
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaveMoral
I agree with him that people need to be more conscious and take the notion of "freedom of expression" with the responsibilities that come with it. I
think we have a responsibility to exercise our freedoms in such a way that doesn't cause harm to individuals or society... and frankly, desecration of
people's sacred things and personages is a form of hate speech. |
are you for real?
seriously
you seem like an ok guy
but some of the shit you say is just.....
if this was the case, there would be no art whatsoever
someone, somewhere is going to be offended by everything or anything
if everyone " exercise our freedoms in such a way that doesn't cause harm to individuals or society" there would be nothing!
no movies
no books
no music
no art
no nothing
think about it man
|
+1
South Park has never been the master of subtlety, no doubt. But they are making a point, and a valid one. Believing something is one thing, wanting to
kill someone for a cartoon/not believing what you do is a whole different matter. That deserves no respect from anyone.
The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, ?You know, I want to set those people over there on
fire, but I?m just not close enough to get the job done.? George Carlin
|
|
|
Mark Lind
Posting Freak
Posts: 1900
Registered: 9-18-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by barc0debaby
I love South Park and completely approve of what they are doing. I don't think it is stupid at all, they are using their platform as a beacon of
social commentary. They would be completely irresponsible if they felt that a situation i.e. the archaic beliefs surrounding the profit Muhammad.
The fact that people are so upset about them not even showing Muhammad goes to reinforce my beliefs that evolution has sadly left these people in the
stone age.
[img]A good portion of the world sees us as a cesspool of immoral waste[/img]
A good portion of the world is uncivilized fuckin cavemen so their point is moot. I was just reading a story the other day about a 13 Yemini girl who
spent four days bleeding to death when her arranged husband busted her hymn. The fact is just like there are a lot of stupid people in America, a
good portion of the world is still just a bunch of ignorant savages.
The only thing that hurts the perception of Muslims is Muslims. You don't want me looking at you funny the airport, don't hijack planes. You don't
want me laughing at Joe Rogan jihad jokes stop bastardizing the word. While I certainly don't think that every single Muslim is a terrorist enough of
them are that somebody needs to say something. Just like not every priest gets sucked off by little boys, but enough of them do to make it a serious
issue.
I'm sure Trey and Matt can afford quality security and hopefully if any attempts are made on them, their retarded Jihadist assailants will get two in
the chest and one in the head. |
I'm not really sure that I support international relations being weakened (or affected in any way) by a cartoon. I generally like South Park and I
even laughed at that episode. It was funny. But look, Trey Parker and Matt Stone aren't going to change the world with their cartoon. The
people that believe in that religion take it seriously. This isn't just Tom Cruise they're making fun of. It's not just a lawsuit they're risking. And
let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's about artistic or social statement; it's about ratings. The majority of the people that watch that show
are stoners and losers sitting on their couch and eating Cheetos. It's not like they're having some sort of social impact; that's all in their minds.
All of this is worst case scenario of course. The likely outcome is that it will blow over and that's it. But if one of them ends up dead is the other
gonna get up at his funeral and say that his buddy died in the name of the first ammendment of the United States constitution? That's just crazy and
stupid. But it's their risk.....
|
|
|
BKT
Posting Freak
Posts: 2476
Registered: 7-6-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gavin
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaveMoral
I agree with him that people need to be more conscious and take the notion of "freedom of expression" with the responsibilities that come with it. I
think we have a responsibility to exercise our freedoms in such a way that doesn't cause harm to individuals or society... and frankly, desecration of
people's sacred things and personages is a form of hate speech. |
are you for real?
seriously
you seem like an ok guy
but some of the shit you say is just.....
if this was the case, there would be no art whatsoever
someone, somewhere is going to be offended by everything or anything
if everyone " exercise our freedoms in such a way that doesn't cause harm to individuals or society" there would be nothing!
no movies
no books
no music
no art
no nothing
think about it man
|
Could not agree more. You want to believe and carry on with such nonsense I have the right to tell you to shut up and fuck off. Just like you can turn
around and tell me the same. No harm no foul. Don't be so fucking sensitive, has it ever occurred to you how offensive I find it when some assholes
knocks on my door, or when I am bombarded with religious jargon day in and day out? Then again what the hell is the point in arguing with anyone who
as a grown man or woman still talks to an imaginary friend.
Fucking absurd all this is.
BKT.
|
|
|
DaveMoral
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by barc0debaby
I love South Park and completely approve of what they are doing. I don't think it is stupid at all, they are using their platform as a beacon of
social commentary. They would be completely irresponsible if they felt that a situation i.e. the archaic beliefs surrounding the profit Muhammad.
The fact that people are so upset about them not even showing Muhammad goes to reinforce my beliefs that evolution has sadly left these people in the
stone age.
[img]A good portion of the world sees us as a cesspool of immoral waste[/img]
A good portion of the world is uncivilized fuckin cavemen so their point is moot. I was just reading a story the other day about a 13 Yemini girl who
spent four days bleeding to death when her arranged husband busted her hymn. The fact is just like there are a lot of stupid people in America, a
good portion of the world is still just a bunch of ignorant savages.
The only thing that hurts the perception of Muslims is Muslims. You don't want me looking at you funny the airport, don't hijack planes. You don't
want me laughing at Joe Rogan jihad jokes stop bastardizing the word. While I certainly don't think that every single Muslim is a terrorist enough of
them are that somebody needs to say something. Just like not every priest gets sucked off by little boys, but enough of them do to make it a serious
issue.
I'm sure Trey and Matt can afford quality security and hopefully if any attempts are made on them, their retarded Jihadist assailants will get two in
the chest and one in the head. |
What's left the Middle East in the stone age is European imperialism and American neo-colonialism. Plain and simple. And, quite frankly, the strain of
Islamic fundamentalism that is the problem here is, in fact, a very MODERN take on Islam much the same way that Christian fundamentalism and Jewish
fundamentalism are modern phenomena.
I'm sad to see that you're buying into the bullshit "profile" everyone mentality. You're also painting the entire Muslim world population with a
rather large brush. Because some random asshole hijacked an airplane I have to be subjected to your scruntiny just because of my religious
affiliation? That's bullshit.
Secondly, South Park is pretty low on the social relevance meter. There are more effective means of criticizing a particular mentality, and it doesn't
have to include offending and alienating the very people that you(as a society) need to have on your side to effectively combat the brand of extremism
represented by those that threaten death on the likes of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. They are being socially irresponsible with this particular idea
of specifically defaming Muhammad... especially when they know full well there's a good chance that anyone that would attempt to kill them would
likely do so as a suicide bomber. They are not likely to sneak into their homes and knife them in their sleep like a ninja. They are likely to keep
tabs on when and where Parker and Stone come and go and drive up and BOOM. They aren't taking their own lives into danger here, but likely others as
well. That's socially irresponsible.
gavin, I so strongly disagree with your sentiment I don't have much to say to you other than to wonder if you think hate speech is valid means of free
expression in a society that values peace and social order. We don't accept that it's valid to advertize products with black face charicatures of
black people anymore because that's racist and uncivilized. Why do we accept that it's okay to desecrate the sacred objects of religious people? It's
no less uncivilized and hateful. Trey Parker and Matt Stone have next to nothing to say that I find remotely relevant, shit South Park barely exists
to me anymore or really anyone else except the afformentioned stoners and losers that are the primary audience now, I can easily ignore what they are
doing here. The last time they depicted Muhammad(in the episode with the religious Super Friends) I thought it was hilarious. This time, if done with
the intent to defame and offend... I'll find it offensive no doubt. Offensive art is one thing, but hatefully offensive art is another IMO. Everyone
has freedom of expression, but it comes with responsibilities and acceptance of the consequences of that expression. In a civil society one could be
censured from public discourse by the public, lose your standing in your community, etc. No one is restricting the freedom of expression of Parker and
Stone, but they've gotten a definite reaction and possible worst case scenario consequence of their exercising their right. Someone is offended and
that someone is violent. Sure, it's uncivil and stupid... but so is needlessly insulting 1.6 billion people for the sake of taking a dig at less than
10% of that population.
I find these guys to be just as ignorant and stupid as those that threaten them. I dare say the primary difference between the two is that Parker and
Stone essentially have a safety net of knowledge that they have a government with the largest military in the world to do violence to those they are
hating on... while the extremist group take matters into their own hands.
*edit* I'm amending my entire post with this: no one has actually threatened Parker and Stone. It's not a threat when some guys running a website make
the observation that it is indeed stupid to do these sorts of things when you know full well that others have done similar and been subject to
violence. The cartoonist in the Netherlands had a guy break into his home while his granddaughter was there trying to kill him. Van Gogh was killed
because of his film that depicted verses from the Qur'an projected on women's bodies. The fact that they cited Van Gogh's murder as proof that walking
down the path of offending specifically a religious figure revered by 1.6 billion people some of whom are known to be violent extremists is stupid and
could indeed get you killed. Never the less, they were not actually threatened by any group unless you consider the general observation that "if you
insist on doing this, there's a good chance someone might try to kill you" is a threat. BD, it'd be a threat if they said "this isn't a threat, but
I'm going to kill you." That's not what was said. It was more like "dude, this guy that did a similar thing was killed over it... you might not want
to do that, it would be stupid."
|
|
|
JawnDiablo
Posting Freak
Posts: 12139
Registered: 4-21-2005
Location: 1902666
Member Is Offline
|
|
Happy Earth Day everyone!
|
|
|
gavin
Posting Freak
Posts: 3973
Registered: 1-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
hate speak is indeed a valid form of some peoples expression.
the klan and other such things have every right to say what they want.
and i have every right to say they are full of shit.
on a much smaller level, im offended by some of the things earth crisis for example have said.
but they have every right to sing about whatever they want
and i have the freedom to dismiss it as not for me.
commentary and criticism of religion and government and other social issues are what alot of great art, music, movies and books are based on.
if everyone who made such things had to be concerned what some backwards thinking people(not a shot at you or yr religion, but extremists of any kind)
then maybe many of the things that alot of people enjoy would never have been made.
my father, who is one of the closest people to me is gay.
if some rap song is made bashing gays, im not getting all up in arms about the "responsibility" that the person who made the song holds.
it's what they choose to do, for whatever reason
who am i to say that they shouldn't express a certain mood or thought because i personally find it offensive?
that's a self important attitude that i dont have and i feel like too many others do.
bottom line is this......
people in general need to grow up and realize that not everything revolves around them and their belief systems
you come at the king....you best not miss
|
|
|
gavin
Posting Freak
Posts: 3973
Registered: 1-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
and how can you know it's "needlessly insulting"?
you dont know what was in their heads when making this
just as you or i dont know what is involved with the making of any artform that is not our own.
art is this......
you like it and get something out of it....or you dont...period
its really that simple
you come at the king....you best not miss
|
|
|
Murk
Posting Freak
Posts: 1243
Registered: 5-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
the whole point of the 200th episode is that Tom Cruise was previously referred to as being "in the closet" and had his religion ridiculed. he is
seen by the kids in the new episode working at a chocolate factory putting fudge into boxes and they call him a "fudge-packer".
Tom teams up with everyone South Park has made fun of and they threaten to ruin South Park if they won't give them Moohawmed. their demand isn't that
he be made fun of, only that they make him show up and give him to Tom. this is simply a nod to the Cartoon Wars 2-part episode where Family Guy is
going to air an image of Moohawmed and the whole town freaks out.
last night, the 201st episode was part two. they completely bleeped Moohawmed's name the entire episode and the last 2 minutes was completely
bleeped, but Buddha does cocaine in both episodes and this one ends with Tom Cruise accused of having semen on his back. the whole point in them
wanting Moohawmed was so they can extract the "goo" that makes him impervious to ridicule and that way South Park can't make fun of Tom Cruise and
others any more.
maybe the world is safer simply bleeping out any reference to Moohawmed or Izlawm to make sure that lines aren't crossed and everyone stays safe. the
message seems to be clear. if you don't want to be the subject of humor, criticism or ridicule; threaten, intimidate, strike fear, hurt and kill any
one who is different than you.
apparently, it works. 
p.s. i have used the phonetic spelling of certain entities to avoid extremists stumbling on this board through search engines. i like the people
here and want everyone to be safe.
|
|
|
newbreedbrian
Posting Freak
Posts: 2616
Registered: 9-2-2004
Location: Hell
Member Is Offline
Mood: doc watson
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gavin
bottom line is this......
people in general need to grow up and realize that not everything revolves around them and their belief systems |
Yup.
The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, ?You know, I want to set those people over there on
fire, but I?m just not close enough to get the job done.? George Carlin
|
|
|
Jason the Magnificent
Posting Freak
Posts: 3880
Registered: 8-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaveMoral
*edit* I'm amending my entire post with this: no one has actually threatened Parker and Stone. It's not a threat when some guys running a website make
the observation that it is indeed stupid to do these sorts of things when you know full well that others have done similar and been subject to
violence. The cartoonist in the Netherlands had a guy break into his home while his granddaughter was there trying to kill him. Van Gogh was killed
because of his film that depicted verses from the Qur'an projected on women's bodies. The fact that they cited Van Gogh's murder as proof that walking
down the path of offending specifically a religious figure revered by 1.6 billion people some of whom are known to be violent extremists is stupid and
could indeed get you killed. Never the less, they were not actually threatened by any group unless you consider the general observation that "if you
insist on doing this, there's a good chance someone might try to kill you" is a threat. BD, it'd be a threat if they said "this isn't a threat, but
I'm going to kill you." That's not what was said. It was more like "dude, this guy that did a similar thing was killed over it... you might not want
to do that, it would be stupid." |
Sorry Dave, but this is some rose colored glasses shit right here.
I don't believe for a minute that the websites intention was not a threat, directly or not.
Are you seriously trying to say that no one cares about South Park in one breath and that it's low on the relevance meter...yet in the next pretending
to be naive enough to believe that website x telling these guys they could get murdered for this and listing their address publicly (multiplying the
public exposure of something "irrelevant" tenfold compared to them not saying anything at all) isn't a thinly veiled threat?
I am curious how you feel about Comedy Central being so scared they actually bleeped a good portion of an episode though. I wonder if they'll bleep
any mention of Jesus now out of fear of their safety. I'd think radical Christians loathe that depiction of their god...
This isn't an attack on anyone beliefs...but shit is out of hand.
|
|
|
DaveMoral
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
No doubt it's out of hand. I think it's out of hand on both ends of the spectrum.
Hell, frankly, I'm more offended by the Jesus porn thing and the Buddha coke thing than the deal with Muhammad.
The fact remains though, there's responsibility in freedom of speech and mostly that responsibility is realizing that there will be consequences for
your words. Sometimes it's censorship on television, loss of standing in the community you're a part of, in this case they are knowingly istigating
violent people against them moreover... specifically because they could get violence.
Muslim extremists didn't pick up on the last time South Park had something to do with Muhammad on it, they wouldn't have this time is some twit
Stateside who watches the show didn't put it on his website. Hell, the media, by blowing up a story that wouldn't have made the news at all because
South Park's viewship isn't what it used to be and a post on a website that no one would have seen most likely, have probably contributed to
increasing the danger to these guys. Hell, there's no real reason to believe right now that anyone in al-Qa'ida or whatever group even knows about
this or cares. It took like 6 months for the Danish cartoons to become news in the Middle East and provoke a negative, over the top, reaction.
|
|
|
Murk
Posting Freak
Posts: 1243
Registered: 5-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaveMoral
The fact remains though, there's responsibility in freedom of speech and mostly that responsibility is realizing that there will be consequences for
your words. |
no there is not.
the very essence of freedom is the absence of consequence.
there is no freedom involved in having to "watch what you say".
|
|
|
DaveMoral
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
That's bullshit, and quite frankly you know that. There is never any such thing as complete freedom, and there are consequences for your speech. The
point of the Constintutional freedom of speech is that the GOVERNMENT does not constrict your speech, except in cases of incitement to violence and
speech that encourages or could result in bodily harm to individuals(such as shouting "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater when there is no such fire). The
people, not the government, however can impose some form of penalty upon person who chooses to engage in a given form of speech. Hence why in most
places the KKK, neo-Nazis and other assorted white power groups tend to get shouted down, run out of towns and protested with equal or greater amounts
of people in opposition to them and their speech. THe people have the right to do so.
People have often been ignored, denied distribution of their opinions, or disallowed to speak at certain venues(often times in response to community
petitions) because of the form of speech they choose to express. That is not a violation of their first amendment rights in any way, it's a case of
the public or venue or institutions taking advantage of their same right to free speech to counter the offending party. This idea that freedom doesn't
come with responsibility is absolutely insane and thoroughly contradictory to a well functioning society and democracy. You surely recognize this
every single day in some way or another, as do I, and everyone else you know or will ever know. That's just common sense.
|
|
|
Murk
Posting Freak
Posts: 1243
Registered: 5-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
replays have been pulled.
episode not available on:
http://www.southparkstudios.com
Here is a healthy torrent link.
Here is a MU link.
|
|
|
DaveMoral
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
For the record, I think it sucks that Comedy Central censored the episode. I can't see the logic in that unless they had some kind of specific
knowledge of an imminent attack if they did air it as is. As it is, it was just an obscure website that said something construed(rightly or wrongly)
as a thinly veiled threat... but it's not as if there was a video issued by a terrorist cell or whatever. Furthermore, while I haven't seen the
episode I'm well aware of the content and I don't personally find it that offensive in the first place. At least not as regards Muhammad, most that
seems rather harmless versus the Jesus watching porn thing and Buddha snorting coke. Both of which I find rather more offensive, as Jesus is the
second most revered Prophet in Islam after Muhammad and the Prophet whose name is mentioned the most in the Qur'an and I personally(along with many
other broad minded Muslims) consider Buddha to also be a Prophet.
|
|
|
random
Posting Freak
Posts: 2293
Registered: 7-30-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaveMoral
At least not as regards Muhammad, most that seems rather harmless versus the Jesus watching porn thing and Buddha snorting coke. Both of which I find
rather more offensive |
I think that's part of their point. It's offensive, but nobody is making murder threats - implicit or explicit - based on South Park depicting Buddha
as a raging coke addict or Jesus as a raging internet porn addict. They are, however, receiving those threats based on a storyline which centers on
the fact that violence is (at least) threatened by some Muslims (a very small number of Muslims, at that) in response to the potential depiction of
Muhammad.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/thorp/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
