I AM SUCH A BAD MAN,
I REALLY WISH I WOULD BURN TO DEATH!
The way it was edited indicates that, presumably, Trey Parker and Matt Stone caved as well.
Interesting. I have to wonder if there is some art to their caving, if it is part and parcel of the provocation, and the lessons we are supposed to learn from the provocation.
From Reuters:
"South Park" airs censored episode after threat
Satirical animated TV show "South Park" beeped out the words Prophet Muhammad and plastered its Wednesday episode with the word "CENSORED" after being issued a grim warning by a U.S. Muslim group.
The irreverent comedy show on Comedy Central also substituted a controversial image seen last week of the Prophet Muhammad in a bear outfit with one of Santa Claus in the same costume.
It was not immediately clear if the move was a bid to tread carefully following the warning against the "South Park" creators, or if they were poking fun at the fuss.
The website posted a graphic photo of Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was killed in 2004 by an Islamic militant over a movie he had made that accused Islam of condoning violence against women. It also posted a link to a news article with details of a mansion in Colorado that Parker and Stone apparently own.
Most Muslims consider any depiction of the founder of Islam as offensive.
The website warning followed the first in a two-part episode of "South Park" a week ago in which Prophet Mohammad was depicted in a bear outfit.
"South Park" has a history of biting satire against politicians, celebrities and the media. The two Colorado filmmakers are known to often work on "South Park" until just before they air, enabling them to react to current events.
In Wednesday's new episode, Jesus Christ was depicted watching pornography and Buddha was portrayed snorting cocaine.
The head of Revolution Muslim, Younus Abdullah Muhammad, 30, defended the Web posting by his group.
"How is that a threat?," he told Reuters earlier on Wednesday. "Showing a case study right there of what happened to another individual who conducted himself in a very similar manner? It's just evidence."
According to U.S. law enforcement officials, the federal government rarely prosecutes threat cases. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives broad protections to free speech, and what constitutes a threat is often subject to interpretation.
Muhammad described his group as an alternative media outlet with about 20 active posters to the website. He said the group "didn't tell anyone to go to their houses and conduct violence" against Parker or Stone.
Q: How many Muslims does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: Silence! I kill you.
Q: How many Infidels does it take to shove a lightbulb up Muhammed's ass?
A: There's no room, what with all the gerbils running around up there.
12 comments:
It MAY also be that Comedy Central and South Park themselves are making a statement. They're airing it anyway and not cutting parts of it but plastering the ridiculous CENSORED label all over the place only brings further attention to it. Especially to those who may be unaware of the controversy.
Just an alternative theory.
That's what I meant by this sentence:
I have to wonder if there is some art to their caving, if it is part and parcel of the provocation, and the lessons we are supposed to learn from the provocation.
Ok, I get it now.
In terms of spotlighting the issue it's actually more effective. Given the wide lack of knowledge of the grim, slimy facts of Islam amongst the general public a lot of the original would go right over their heads. But even the dimmest bulbs in the room will have to wonder what the hell all those CENSORED signs are about.
Few things make Islam look for deservedly puerile and idiotic than some fat bearded goof in a white crocheted beanie out on the sidewalk pontificating to some reporter about how South Park's Muhammed bears are offending Islam.
There are more effective ways to make the point but in most of them innocent people get hurt. Getting away with making Muslims look stoopid before they can even try something violent is a plus.
Revere Rides Again,
I saw part of the second part, of the episode with Muhammad's name bleeped out. If I hadn't seen the uncensored first part, non of it would have made any sense. None the less I was so angry at comedy Central for caving that just stopped watching it. I'm afraid you might be wrong. Its nice to find a silver lining, but I'm afraid that Comedy Central's caving will only serve to embolden Muslim fanatics who already think that they can terrorize the entire non Islamic world into submission.
Sounds to me like one way of turning that situation around a bit is to up the incidence of "offending" occurrences whilst making it more difficult for the muzzies to identify -- and therefore terrorize -- the "offenders". This is just random musings for entertainment purposes only you understand, with no intention of encouraging such activity...
Revere Rides Again,
Tray Parker and Matt Stone may not have that intention, but I have a feeling it will have that effect.
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.
It is interesting what Stone says, isn't it? The question now is: Have they been hypocritical or not?
That point about 2001's episode which didn't cause any "warnings" is truly interesting...
Hi guy's some more censoring news:Danish cartoonist put on indefinite leave following attacks: http://ow.ly/1BXDx
Will, for some reason, the link doesn't work.
Well, dont overlook the real issue here.
The Islamist's threats of violence, backed up by real acts of violence (Van Gogh's Murder)..... worked.
It altered our societal behavior in the direction the Islamists wanted. We, or at least our governments, corporations, and others at risk of being targeted, are extremely hesitant to do anything that makes the angry Muslim any angrier.
Thats really the main reason I've become somewhat disenchanted with the so-call counter-jihad movement ....... is because the use of violence, and its effective counterpart, threats of retributive violence, have been taken off the table for the most part.
We need to be able to say "OK, if something bad happens to the South Park producers, we're going to blow up some Mosques". If we discover who did it, were going to blow up his village and Mosque.
..... to where ultimately Nuking Mecca and Qom are on the table.
Of course threats of violence are hollow unless they are backed up by the occasional actual act.
Unfortunately, I've concluded we're not going to ever play that game. We're going to keep yielding the indiscriminate violence committing high ground to those that are not afraid to take it.
So where does it stop? When are they going to stop making demands that we change our societal behavior? They're not going to stop demanding as long at we keep attempting to meet their demands.
Why would they stop?
Would you stop if you were them?
They're not going to stop until we, as a society, demonstrate to them that their violence and threats of violence are counter-productive to their cause. And thats not going to happen until we start making demands upon their society..... and then responding to their non-compliance with violence.
If we're waiting on our western governments to take this position ......... then we might as well just kick back and wait until the jihadist do something that actually threatens our politician's welfare. Until they, or we, start Van Goghing Western politicians on a regular basis ...... we're never going to be able to wage an effective counter-jihad.
Until we can get back to the point where we can unremorsefully carpet bomb the enemy's villages and cities ...... like we have done in the past when properly threatened ...... this is all just human theater.
Until we are willing to, as individuals, risk our own government's wrath and our personal freedoms and prosperity in the name of our cause, like the jihadis currently are, then we just need to learn to live with this kind of shit.
Right now, they (as a society) want victory more than we (as a society) do. Until they, or we, manage do something to alter that calculus these threats will continue. Right now there's no down-side for them in making these threats.
I dream of the day that changes.
I will kick his ass and fuck him who made this show One should not make fun of any religion it is against the international laws and as far as muslims are concerned they will kill that man who mad this show dont make muslims angry as they believe that One day they will conquer this universe as they did before all the great inventions that lead to this modren era were made by muslims like the discovery of "Sulphuric acid" done by"Jabi-bin-hayan" The day will come when this world will be on the palm of muslims and All of you will see......
Post a Comment