> The issue now is that the puritanical outrage stretches past the pulpit and Letters to the Editor and directly into your notifications,
I think many people have realized that they can control the discourse by pretending to be offended. And it is not easy to figure out if someone is genuinely distraught at seeing a cartoon like that (or anything really) or they are just claiming they are.
> And it is not easy to figure out if someone is genuinely distraught at seeing a cartoon like that (or anything really) or they are just claiming they are
We should just not care. Somebody is always going to be offended with something. You can't please everyone. Somebody being offended in not an excuse to publish something. That's what's wrong with the present expectations -- the acceptance that "offending" someone is an excuse enough not to print something.
We should simply stop accepting that somebody being "offended" is enough to produce a veto to publish anything.
If anybody is scared they should also just admit that. But not accept that those who threat him or her have any right to do so.
"Molly Norris drew the original, poster-like cartoon on April 20, 2010, which declared May 20, 2010, to be the first annual "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". The drawing showed various anthropomorphized objects, including a coffee cup, a cherry and a box of pasta, each claiming to be the likeness of Muhammad."
"FBI officials reportedly notified Norris warning her that they considered it a "very serious threat."[143][144]
"Norris has since changed her name and gone into hiding. According to the Seattle Weekly (her former employer), this decision was based on "the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI.""
"As of 2015, Norris is still in hiding and jihadist threats against her life continue."
We should publish exactly what is "offensive" until there is enough of it that nobody's life can be threatened.
"The gunmen burst into the meeting room and called out Charb's name to target him before opening fire. The shooting lasted five to ten minutes. The gunmen aimed at the journalists' heads and killed them."
"On the morning of Nov. 2 in a busy street in east Amsterdam, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri pulled out a gun and shot controversial filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was riding a bike to his office. Van Gogh hit the ground and stumbled across the street to a nearby building. He didn't make it. As the Moroccan strode toward him, van Gogh shouted, "We can still talk about it! Don't do it! Don't do it." But the Moroccan didn't stop. He shot him again, slit van Gogh's throat and stuck a letter to his chest with a knife. He was slaughtered like an animal, witnesses said. "Cut like a tire," said one. Van Gogh, the Dutch master's great-grand-nephew, was 47 years old."
I don't understand why this is downvoted so much. If we're going to apply the three filters (Is it kind? Is it necessary? Is it true?), the parent comment seems to fulfill two of them. Can someone chime in and educate me?
I think many people have realized that they can control the discourse by pretending to be offended. And it is not easy to figure out if someone is genuinely distraught at seeing a cartoon like that (or anything really) or they are just claiming they are.