How does the World view America these days?

[Adieu]

Also, I'm not emphasizing the importance of one over the other. I've already stated clearly my feelings about the right and wrong actions that took place. What I find much more important is why these people held the contest, which by the way, doesn't seem to be just an exercise in freedom of speech when you analyze video containing propaganda about judeo-christianism. Secondly, I find that holding a competition such as this is EXTREMELY purposeless, distasteful, and needlessly inflammatory. In a way the doesn't recognize the fucking atrocities being carried out by our government in the region. it shows an obvious ignorance on the part of the organizer and participants, and it only furthers the divide between the people of this earth.

[Alcofribas]

in issues of free speech there is the basic distinction between the right to speech and the content of that speech; one can completely support the former without endorsing the latter. the legendary one-liner on this is attributed to voltaire: "i detest what you write, but i would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

 

in the recent incident in texas it should go without saying that the right to draw muhhamad is not in question and one ought to condemn the killings as firmly as possible. but one should also take into account the intellectual content of the group that organized the event and consider whether you agree with them or not. imo pam geller's ideas are boorish and cheap and i certainly do not consider them important conceptions of the issues she attempts (and fails) to grapple with. in contrast to the previous characterization of this event as "brilliant" i find it a vulgar publicity stunt. i am completely on their side with respect to their right to express their ideas and organize their events but i have no interest whatsoever in their take on the political and religious issues under question. and obviously the value of the ideas of people who opened fire and killed is bellow the level of consideration.

 

basically, i think that we're all really in need of some truly compelling and thought-provoking insights into the entire situation of the "war on terror" and the various component issues contained in this paradigm (western imperialism, the role of islam, the isomorphism of religious and political behaviors, etc etc) and quite frankly the intellectual level of mainstream discussion on all these points is terribly low on both sides.

[usagi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldIXozO2ais

[awepittance]

 

 

 

I think the whole draw-the-prophet thing was brilliant and people need to start realizing that this idea of islam being a peacful religion driven to extremes by western meddling is just simply not true. Has US intervention caused a lot of problems in the middle east? Most certainly. Are those who are willing to kill people over a cartoon uneducated, ignorant, and operating on stone-age superstition? Undeniably.

it was brilliant only in the ridley scott meaning of the word.

autopilot what the hell man, are you serious? it was 'brilliant' ?

 

 

im going to walk into the ghetto with a shirt that says 'nigger' on it and get killed. That was fucking brilliant wasn't it?

 

before i do this i'm also hosting a cartoon contest about who can draw the biggest nose on a cartoon caricature of a jewish man, catch you on the flipside dewd and pls continue to bask in my belligerent brilliance

Are you really taking that side? And are you really equating simply drawing Muhammed with spewing racist hatred?

 

"Wrong side of history" and all that...

 

i'm not in the mood to have a Sam Harris framed debate with you,

 

when you're down to argue outside of that typical and tiring framing and use your own logic and critical thinking i'll engage.

 

i'll end this argument by just saying "islam is not a race" because thats what Sam Harris would have said

 

 

on another note the funny thing is not even Fox News is stupid enough at this point to stand behind Pamella Geller. After the initial retard snowball campaign they kinda reversed a little bit probably out of embarrassment for how idiotic they all looked during the peak hour.

Edited May 10, 2015 by John Ehrlichman

[LimpyLoo]

So, my point was that people should be able draw whatever they want without having over their shoulder for the Blasphemy Police, and I get all this pushback and comparisons to Fox News...

 

I don't even know what to say...

[Adieu]

So, my point was that people should be able draw whatever they want without having over their shoulder for the Blasphemy Police, and I get all this pushback and comparisons to Fox News...

 

I don't even know what to say...

 

And we're all saying we agree with you but that doesn't make them any less of douchebags for doing it.

[LimpyLoo]

Douchebags for drawing Muhammed? Are you also worried about offending Christians and Scientologists?

 

See, I think the real problem here is that we live in a world where people are so outraged at cartoons (etc) that they literally go murder people. Isn't that the real (and only) problem here?

 

Pam Geller is just some random knucklehead drawing some cartoons. It wouldn't be an issue if there weren't some severely confused people who took offense to it. Again, if music were considered blasphemous, would you not play music? In fact, would you not participate in a protest where people were flexing their right to play music?

 

Here's a sober look at this issue: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/10/the_left_has_islam_all_wrong_bill_maher_pamela_geller_and_the_reality_progressives_must_face/

[awepittance]

Again, if music were considered blasphemous, would you not play music

loooool

[Audioblysk]

I'm kind of with Limpy on this one. This is a basic freedom of expression, as insensitive as it may be to some who perceive it as such. People have always been persecuted in the pursuit of free speech and expression and still do, whether by chains, iron bars or firing squad. But, this is how terrorism (not the typical american meaning of it, but the definition of the word) works, if you cave in to banning the image of a prophet because of perceived acts of violence, then you have let someone using terror and fear accomplish their goal.

 

If you are against a simple cartoon being drawn of a fictional deity that NOBODY knows of their actual appearance - you are dictating what is okay and not okay to do. For me, with humor and especially in the realm provocative of visual art or performance art, I don't have to particularly like it, but either everything is okay or nothing is, especially when it comes to what one can and can't draw.

 

That's just this cat's feelings on the subject. I really don't see why JE always has to come off as a callous dick when ever engaged in a simple internet discussion/debate on here. It's always so quick to insults and lashing out. Do you really argue like that with people in person? Must be fucking unbearable to see a 30+ year old dude act like a child when a simple exchange of ideas goes against your personal views. I hope you don't man, you're a nice guy most of the time. Here's a flower

Edited May 11, 2015 by Audioblysk

[Alcofribas]

afaik it's been established that everyone itt agrees on the free speech aspect.

 

however, that's a rather one-dimension perspective of the situation. take a look at pam geller and you'll quickly see that this involves radical politics on both sides.

[Audioblysk]

Well, yeah. That chick is a total cunt.

[Candiru]

Anyone can draw Muhammed getting fucked by Yosemite Sam in their free time, but is it worth the risk to hold a publicized event where people are doing that, knowing what the consequences will be? Pick your battles and don't provoke crazy people.

[Rubin Farr]

Why does Nike support Qatar Air? An American company, and one of the largest apparel companies on Earth, openly supports one of the worst slave trades currently in existence. I walked into a flagship store today, and almost became ill at the amount of Qatar gear on display. Fuck Nike. I'm glad I don't own any of their shit.

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar

[doublename]

Why does Nike support Qatar Air? An American company, and one of the largest apparel companies on Earth, openly supports one of the worst slave trades currently in existence. I walked into a flagship store today, and almost became ill at the amount of Qatar gear on display. Fuck Nike. I'm glad I don't own any of their shit.

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar

 

 

Nike has a contract with FC Barcelona to make the shirt, Barcelona has a separate contract with Qatar Airways wear their name on the shirt. FCB took a lot of flack for changing shirt sponsors from UNICEF to QA a few years back. Nike doesn't choose what company's name goes on the front.

Edited May 11, 2015 by doublename

[chenGOD]

They don't support Qatar Air - they paid to sponsor FC Barcelona - jersey sales bring in mega bucks for them. When FC Barcelona signed the sponsorship deal (the first in the club's history) in 2010, the issues were not receiving the kind of attention they are today. Barcelona is reportedly considering dropping the sponsor at the end of this year as the contract runs out and they are not comfortable with the social situation.

Nike has never shied away from controversial labour practices though - remember this?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blnike.htm

[Rubin Farr]

Yeah that's fucked

[luke viia]

and Nike is the biggest corporate lobbyist for the trans-pacific partnership, and Obama just had his rally for it at one of their HQs in Oregon last week. hooray.

 

@chen: sorry it took me so long to reply (working too much lately), but re: the ISDS stuff, the bits I'm particulary wary of are: the far expanded IP section (compared to NAFTA), and the suing for loss of anticipated profits, even if the MNC suing has not substantially invested yet (has that particular bit been included in previous trade agreements?). Seems incredibly shady. ISDS strikes me as a legal tool that needs serious reform at this point, and at this point in history I question its validity as a valid way to protect investors, or host countries, at all. I've struggled to find a readable snapshot/overview of the coverage of investor state dispute claims as they've evolved. All I can tell is that the gross # of ISDS claims have gone up significantly in the last decade (...254%...), and I don't see that stopping if we pass a trade agreement with a massive scope like this, which also includes the far reaching, vague, convoluted intellectual property section, which is extremely worrying. I definitely don't see that being changed in the future if this thing gets fast track authority tomorrow. We need need need to be able to see this thing in daylight and amend the shit out of it before it gets pushed through with a yes/no vote, no changes allowed, take-it-as-it-is for no reason hoopla. IMO the inclusion of ISDS in the TPP doesn't even aid "free trade" (the claim that it helps foreign investment has been pretty widely debated, with studies showing there is very little correlation between ISDS in BITs and positive foreign investment results [bad phrasing I'm sure, ehscuse me], which I'm guessing you're more familiar with that than I am), and its presence in this agreement is likely largely responsible for hindering the progress and discussion on the thing for the last few years.

 

It's possible that I am seriously misunderstanding some of what I'm writing about; this subject is hard to breach for the average interested citizen like myself, so I'm all ears if you have anything to add. I respect your knowledge on these topics, though I may not always agree with your perspective. Cheers man.

 

*goes to bed, has nightmares*

Edited May 12, 2015 by luke viia

[goDel]

Regarding the ISDS thing my biggest worry is about disputes getting settled outside courts and with that out of the public eye. I would feel better if this stuff didn't happen outside of the public eye, as the public might be the best protection against misuse from any party involved.

Wrt to the ISDS itself I'm not too worried simply because it's practically impossible for an international investor to win a case against a country with new regulatory laws (not in favor of the investor) which are backed by the democratic principles most countries run on (at least formally on paper). That's one of the basic principles any court will uphold and any investor has to respect no matter what. Regulations which are a product of the democratic process would win in any case. At least, that's the part which I think I understand. I admit my investment in the matter hasn't been too big.

[azatoth]

I am looking forward to the cyberpunk dystopian future where multinational megacorporations rule the world. And working people have become serfs to them.

[goDel]

Future?

[baph]

I am looking forward to the cyberpunk dystopian future where multinational megacorporations rule the world. And working people have become serfs to them.

this is more or less indistinguishable from the present

 

edit: godeled

Edited May 12, 2015 by baph

[chenGOD]

luke - I think you bring up some very valid points. The IP section as far as I know is separate to the ISDS section, although it's been a little while since I read the leaked documents. Regardless, the IP section is the one that I have the biggest issues with. It's far too stringent and does basically nothing to foster innovation.

I did some research/writing on MNCs and ISDS cases in NAFTA as an undergrad, and I concluded that while they do cede too much leeway to the corporations for suing, the panel decisions this far have not been ultimately disastrous. My opinion here is that TPP actually levels the playing field somewhat, as previously, it had been mostly US corps doing the dirty work.

With regards to the FDI, I can't say I'm an expert, but from what I've read it seems that there is a marginal effect in play - that is, ISDS provision do increase FDI flows, but only up to a certain level - if the ISDS provisions are too strong, the effect is reduced considerably. The maths on some of those papers went a little over my head, and I had to get my much smarter friend to explain some of the results to me. Since I trust him implicitly, I have no reason to doubt the results of the papers.

There was one very long paper from some Dutch analysts that basically said the risks from ISDS clauses are overstated, and that mitigation of them is possible with careful negotiation.

 

Now, the issue that goDel brings up is an important one - I'm all for improved transparency in these dispute settlements, and I very much disagree with allowing lawyers who can represent corps in the future sit on the arbitration panel. If there was one thing I would suggest you urge your congressperson/senator to consider on the TPP (or TTIP, if that one bothers you) it would be wording that removes this conflict of interest. As the provisions for those panels currently sit, they are not transparent at all.

[azatoth]

Future?

 

Hmmm, perhaps more explicitly than it is now.

[goDel]

 

Future?

 

Hmmm, perhaps more explicitly than it is now.

 

 

It won't get any more explicit than it already is though. Transparency tends to be a pretty good cure against these practices.

 

admittedly: it is pretty f-ing explicit already. *cough kochs*

Edited May 12, 2015 by goDel

[azatoth]

On further thought, some places already look like something from Blade Runner. We are in the future.

 

Where do you reckon the transparency will come from? It doesn't seem the average rube cares about it enough to take a stand for it. The powers that be sure don't seem to care about it or have vested interests in keeping it on the DL.