Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Where To Find Opus On Sunday

kdawson posted about 7 years ago | from the what-has-our-boy-gone-and-done-now dept.

Media 495

Berkeley Breathed has a note up on his site: "Note to Opus readers: The Opus strips for August 26 and September 2 have been withheld from publication by a large number of client newspapers across the country, including Opus' host paper The Washington Post. The strips may be viewed in a large format on their respective dates at Salon.com.."

cancel ×

495 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frosty piss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360433)

i'm too fucked up to say anything more: fucking linux faggots. go suck your dicks.

Bizarro Slashdot (0, Troll)

antic (29198) | about 7 years ago | (#20360445)

Is this Bizarro Slashdot? I don't know what this story is about. I'm guessing it's about a comic strip of which I've never heard?

(Searching...)

I've hit Wikipedia to learn that it's a comic strip about a penguin. Is this strip popular amongst nerds? Is the penguin related to Tux?

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360475)

Opus is the descendant of what was once Bloom County. If you don't know what Bloom County was then I feel sorry for you. Missing that cartoon is like never having read Calvin & Hobbes or The Far Side. Great comics are few and far between. Usually we get left with crap like Cathy and Garfield that recycle jokes day after day.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (3, Insightful)

thrash242 (697169) | about 7 years ago | (#20360497)

Except that Calvin and Hobbes and the Far Side are both funny.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (1)

jcr (53032) | about 7 years ago | (#20360525)

Well, Bloom County was funnier than Doonesbury..

Oh, wait.

-jcr

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 7 years ago | (#20361287)

It's unfortunate that this post got marked down as a troll.

I never "got" Bloom County either. It just wasn't my kind of thing, I guess.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (5, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | about 7 years ago | (#20360751)

Opus is the descendant of what was once Bloom County. If you don't know what Bloom County was then I feel sorry for you. Missing that cartoon is like never having read Calvin & Hobbes or The Far Side. Great comics are few and far between. Usually we get left with crap like Cathy and Garfield that recycle jokes day after day.
I agree 100% about Bloom County - a classic. Sadly 'Opus' isn't living up to the same standard, though. So all you young whippersnappers, if you read a few Opuses and think there is no reason to check out Bloom County, I urge you to give it a shot anyhow.

As for the censorism: I am sure Slashdot will be full of "we wouldn't censor stuff like this if it was about Christianity/etc., so why should we pander to Islam?". Now, technically that is correct - far worse material appears about Christianity than Islam; there is far more sensitivity towards Islam. However, I don't think that makes it wrong to do so. As I see it, there is a solid basis for attempting to not offend Muslims (whereas what I am about to say now is extremely offensive to them): They can't take a joke. Just like if you have a sensitive neurotic kid in your neighborhood, you wouldn't call him names in jest that you would call everyone else.

Some people deserve special treatment not because they are special in a privileged way, but because they are special in the 'Special Olympics' way.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (5, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 years ago | (#20361079)

Just like if you have a sensitive neurotic kid in your neighborhood, you wouldn't call him names in jest that you would call everyone else.
Brother, you didn't grow up in my neighborhood.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (1)

Elemenope (905108) | about 7 years ago | (#20361081)

Just like if you have a sensitive neurotic kid in your neighborhood, you wouldn't call him names in jest that you would call everyone else.

Dude, I don't know what amazing utopian neighborhood you grew up in, but in most of the rest of the world, that kid you just described gets it the worst.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (1)

ajs (35943) | about 7 years ago | (#20361355)

I am sure Slashdot will be full of "we wouldn't censor stuff like this if it was about Christianity/etc.
That's true, but I think that's mostly because, in the U.S. at least, we understand Christianity as a culture, and understand what sorts of fun we can and cannot make of it without outright offending anyone. After all, we've been learning that for centuries. Think back to the places where the jokes went over the top, and we learned what would offend. Remember Piss Christ [wikipedia.org] ? There is a line, but it's a fuzzy, cultural line that we had to find with trial and error. With Islam, we don't know where the line is, so we play it safe. Artists like B.B. are pushing the limits of our understanding with respect to where that line is, and someday we will have adapted to Islam to the point that we will be able to safely make fun of it without offending anyone *most* of the time.

To those of the Muslim faith: don't take it the wrong way. This is how a culture comes to terms with something new. You're now "in" so to speak.

Direct link (2, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 7 years ago | (#20361247)

Direct link to the cartoon [salon.com] .

A cartoon that criticizes women's attempts to act superior and also discusses Islamic religious practices is too complicated for most newspapers.

Of course, banning it gives it publicity, too.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (2, Insightful)

cosmocain (1060326) | about 7 years ago | (#20360487)

you COULD have followed the link which would EVENTUALLY have led you to the comic. i really do hope you're doin' your job a little bit mor effective. i mean, it's weekend and such, so you really can waste your time doing searches.

on the other hand this is not really about a comic strip, but about religion and freedom of speech. it's about the climate of fear that's been constructed ever since 9/11. it's about the same as here [www.cbc.ca] . (first link i found, didn't want to waste MY time doing searches ;) )

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (1)

Xemu (50595) | about 7 years ago | (#20360675)

this is not really about a comic strip, but about religion and freedom of speech

Like water and oil, they don't mix.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (4, Informative)

mutende (13564) | about 7 years ago | (#20360709)

Hot Air suggests this is the offending comic strip [imageshack.us] . Read the full story at Hot Air [hotair.com] .

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (1)

arivanov (12034) | about 7 years ago | (#20361147)

The cartoon is quite tame. Just compare to some recent Spanish ones involving their royal family ...

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (2, Insightful)

KillerCow (213458) | about 7 years ago | (#20360715)

you COULD have followed the link which would EVENTUALLY have led you to the comic.

Or they could have just linked to the comic. Because most of us are not going to bother to go looking in September for the other one.

comic [salon.com]

To answer you question... (2)

Mieckowski (741243) | about 7 years ago | (#20360511)

I assume you don't read newspapers much (niether do I), but it's one of the few national newspaper comic strips (and, according to Wikipedia, made by a pulitzer-prize winning cartoonist). It looks like the most recent strip has been censored for political reasons (which should be obvious from it's content).

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (0, Flamebait)

Seumas (6865) | about 7 years ago | (#20360735)

I seem to recall Opus was some dull "comic" about a fat penguin that originated from the same idiots who did the equally boring Doonsbury. Really, who still reads sunday comics?

Actually, who still reads the news paper? It's just a hassle to get rid of those endless stacks of dead wood when it gathers up every week.

I can't remember the last comic strip that was truly funny. And no, it wasn't Dilbert. Dilbert is just a way of placating cubicle dwellers into accepting their shitty place in life.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360789)

The late 80s and early 90s were the last hurrah of good funny pages - and even in those days I skipped over 80% of the two page comic spread without even glancing at it. Once "The Far Side", "Calvin and Hobbes" and "Bloom County" were gone it was just done.

today's comic, not slashdotted (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360939)

Can be found here [encycloped...matica.com]


Offensive to some? Probably. Freedom of speech? Definitely.

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (1)

vidarh (309115) | about 7 years ago | (#20361071)

Well, Bizarro is one of my most favorite comics, but Opus is higher up the list...

If you've missed Bloom County / Outland / Opus you owe it to yourself to catch up. There's a great collection called "Opus: 25 years of his Sunday best" that'd give you a good introduction, though you'd miss out on the daily strips of the early years (the current incarnation of the series is only Sunday panels)

Re:Bizarro Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20361083)

I don't know what this story is about. I'm guessing it's about a comic strip of which I've never heard?
A quick look at the comic outlets aren't carrying [salon.com] reveals outlets saw it and said "zOMG Radical Islam = Teh No"; Slashdot is covering it because "zOMG Censorship = Teh No"; and the cartoonist probably realised it wouldn't get carried but thought a censorship controversy would get coverage outside his normal market (i.e. you and me now know about him) and make him look edgy and controversial.

Danes did it first... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360461)

Oh my. Well, I guess I can see why the newspapers are nervous after the Danish cartoon thing with Muhammad a while back. Still, the Danes seem to have more backbone than the American newspapers, especially since Muhammad isn't depicted or even mentioned in the strip.

Re:Danes did it first... (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | about 7 years ago | (#20360551)

Oh my. Well, I guess I can see why the newspapers are nervous after the Danish cartoon thing with Muhammad a while back. Still, the Danes seem to have more backbone than the American newspapers, especially since Muhammad isn't depicted or even mentioned in the strip.
Berkley Breathed is usually a bit more clever. My money is on biting, accurate and funny.

This is usually made better by the hyper sensitivity of the target.

Re:Danes did it first... (3, Insightful)

iocat (572367) | about 7 years ago | (#20360633)

People love him when he's dishing out progressive/lib barbs, but if he takes on a more controversial subject than "George Bush is a dummy," suddenly a) no one can be bothered to stand up for him and b) people start bagging on the script.

Re:Danes did it first... (1)

PingPongBoy (303994) | about 7 years ago | (#20360819)

muhammad a while back

Even more recently, Jesus with a cigarette [www.cbc.ca] had a newspaper in trouble. Wonder if Opus is messing around with this story?

Re:Danes did it first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360971)

I'm surprised Opus wasn't censored earlier for showing Steve Dallas smoking in a section of the newspaper that children read.

Re:Danes did it first... (1)

CubeNudger (984277) | about 7 years ago | (#20361169)

I think what the Danish cartoon thing showed is that radical Muslims can flip out over extremely random (or at least unpredictable) offenses to them. Why did the Ayatollah pronounce death to Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoon guys, but not to the literally thousands of other blasphemous publications out there? I have no idea, and I assume, neither does the Post. Clearly, in neither of these cases did the offended party really understand the work (certainly, in the case of The Satanic Verses he never read the book), it was just the description of the content that caused the offense. I'm sure the newspapers said "why risk it for some fucking cartoon?" Not that I agree with that decision.

Re:Danes did it first... (1)

shaggy43 (21472) | about 7 years ago | (#20361227)

See, this is why we're in a quagmire all through the Middle East:

Both outcomes, sadly, were 100% predictable to anyone who had some actual knowledge of the region.

Unfortunately, that means most people 'over here' are still shocked and amazed when backlash is that strong.

Re:Danes did it first... (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 7 years ago | (#20361367)

Still, the Danes seem to have more backbone than the American newspapers

Muslims are around 3% of Denmark's popluation. Since when does it require "backbone" to insult a small and relatively poor and powerless minority? I don't think it was backbone at all, but simple lack of responsibility. Just because you have the freedom to offend, does not obligate you to exercise that freedom frivolously.

Um (-1, Troll)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 7 years ago | (#20360463)

I'm sure I'm not the only one, but What is Opus, and why should I care?

Who. Not "What" (3, Informative)

ctid (449118) | about 7 years ago | (#20360547)

Opus is an orphaned penguin who ends up living in a house with a lot of other misfits and weird people. He was one of the stars of "Bloom County", Berkeley Breathed's amazing cartoon strip which ran from 1980 to 1989.

Re:Um (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360905)

He's the beloved author of "Programming with Ack!" and "Configuring and using thpbbt on Unix systems". Learn your roots man.

Re:Um (0, Offtopic)

S.O.B. (136083) | about 7 years ago | (#20361059)

Someone pleeeaasssseeee mod this up.

Re:Um (1)

vidarh (309115) | about 7 years ago | (#20361053)

Seriously.... Opus / Outland is one of THE classics of American comics over the last 25 years, with some of the most biting satire (political and other) you'll find. Personally I'd rate is as the best US comic ever. But then I'm from a country where most people actually read comics (Norway - with 4.5 million people, our comic magazines regularly have larger circulations than most US ones could ever hope for, and even some newspaper strips like Ernie have their own monthly magazines)

Opus you say? (1)

stonedcat (80201) | about 7 years ago | (#20360465)

Holland?

Re:Opus you say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20361213)

I think you meant Denmark.

Without a comment... (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | about 7 years ago | (#20360481)

from Berkeley or the papers, what is there to discuss except conspiracy theories and baseless accusations.

I guess it's still news... even if it's a little under cooked.

Anyone have any facts. Not Fox news or Bill O'Riley brand facts but real information?

Re:Without a comment... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360721)

Here's facts for you.

The editors of the papers that will not be printing these cartoons are the same ones who regularly criticize the Bush administation, publish disgusting cartoons by Pat Oliphant, don't think twice about publishing information that might be damaging to national security and they do it all because they know they'll end up without a hair on their heads being harmed.

The editors of these papers regularly run articles informing us how Homeland Security is overreacting, how Islam is misunderstood and really a religon of peace.

The editors of these papers will claim that they are not printing these cartoons because the cartoons are insensitive and might offend muslims.

But here's the deep down, bottom line fact:

The editors of these papers are not running the cartoons because they're afraid someone will blow up their offices or shoot them or simply cut their fucking heads off and post a video of it on YouTube.

Re:Without a comment... (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 years ago | (#20360757)

But here's the deep down, bottom line fact:

The editors of these papers are not running the cartoons because they're afraid someone will blow up their offices or shoot them or simply cut their fucking heads off and post a video of it on YouTube.

That seems to me to be a very good reason not to run them?

Re:Without a comment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360811)

That seems to me to be a very good reason not to run them?


Well, no. You seem to have missed this part:

The editors of these papers regularly run articles informing us how Homeland Security is overreacting, how Islam is misunderstood and really a religon of peace.


The editors like to tell us one thing and then they go and behave in a way that indicates they don't really believe what they told us. They may pretend to believe what they told us but they're only doing so to fool themselves so that they don't have to admit to themselves that they lie to their readers and that they lie to themselves.

Easier for them to make excuses about why they won't run the cartoons, excuses that make them seem elightened and sensitive, instead of being truthful about why they won't run the cartoons and coming across as far less elightened and sensitive than they've been making themselves out to be.

Re:Without a comment... (1)

El Torico (732160) | about 7 years ago | (#20361207)

That seems to me to be a very good reason not to run them?

Pragmatism, cowardice, or both?

Re:Without a comment... (0, Troll)

earnest murderer (888716) | about 7 years ago | (#20360791)

Look O'Riley you have your own goddamned show at Fox why do you have to show up and comment in a thread you were specifically excluded from? ...very funny. shame you posted anonymously.

Re:Without a comment... (2, Insightful)

vidarh (309115) | about 7 years ago | (#20361033)

Really? Do you have a list of the papers refusing to run it and documentation to back of those claims? Or is it just hot air?

Re:Without a comment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20361097)

sigh... Just read the comic and then do a Google News search, okay? Is that really so hard to do?

http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/08/26/opus/ [salon.com]
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=opus+is lam&btnG=Search+News [google.com]

There you go, lazy boy, you can just click away. No, I'm not the parent poster, but it's pretty damn obvious that he's right.

Terrible news!!! (0, Troll)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 7 years ago | (#20360493)

OH Nooooooooooooooo.... oh wait a minute, what the hell are Opus strips?!

Re:Terrible news!!! (4, Insightful)

daveywest (937112) | about 7 years ago | (#20360515)

Opus is political and social issues satire comic. In other words, it appeals to people older than you.

Re:Terrible news!!! (1)

brainburger (792239) | about 7 years ago | (#20361121)

What country is it published in?
I have never heard of it (I am a UK person, so I am surprised to see mention of Doonesbury which I do know).

Re:Terrible news!!! (1)

vieux schnock (146044) | about 7 years ago | (#20361201)

I have a feeling the original "Bizarro Slashdot" parent post was absolutely sarcastic, and everybody fell for it. The penguin reference was obvious.

Actually, my view of this post is that it wonders why it is "News for Nerds" and why should a cartoon be singled out for censorship. There must be hundreds sharing that fate everyday. And judging by the knee-jerk reaction of all the other posters explaining how Opus / Bloom County / (...) were absolutely important in their life (though half of those posters agree that it's not as funny anymore) makes you wonder on all those postings that focus on certain cultural references associated with geek-ness. I read "Bloom County", never read "Opus", doesn't mean I want it to follow me in this forum.

The original article is not about 'Net censorship. It about a craftsman who can't find his market anymore in mainstream media and tries to find a new sponsor.

Re:Terrible news!!! (1)

Moredhel (1356) | about 7 years ago | (#20361229)

Opus isn't (I don't think) in any British paper. Bloom County was printed with If... in The Guardian for many years back when. Opus fell out of Bloom County.

And Bloom County and If... were the best there was.

Fuck all panderers and Muslims (1, Troll)

heinousjay (683506) | about 7 years ago | (#20360523)

The terrorists have won. I guess I'd better start praising Allah and learning how to beat my wife.

Re:Fuck all panderers and Muslims (1)

Khakionion (544166) | about 7 years ago | (#20360539)

Yes, that is exactly what this news article is trying to imply.

Re:Fuck all panderers and Muslims (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | about 7 years ago | (#20360557)

Yes, that is exactly what this news article is trying to imply.
Damnit. I totally missed that. So what is the rule about open/closed hands?

Re:Fuck all panderers and Muslims (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360629)

*sigh*

Just get a stick. Good grief! This isn't rocket science!

Is that better or worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360937)

...than praising God and molesting your children?

Re:Is that better or worse... (1)

heinousjay (683506) | about 7 years ago | (#20361003)

I don't know, I'm not a Christian either. Fuck them while I'm at it.

How can you not know Opus/Bloom County? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360531)

Or Mary-Kay Commandos and their pink uzis.

Geeks should spend more time reading the funny papers. But then, I did say paper didn't I...

Re:How can you not know Opus/Bloom County? (1)

QuickFox (311231) | about 7 years ago | (#20361103)

How can you not know Opus/Bloom County?
Some people live outside the United States. You know, the rest of the world? Other countries? The other...

*Sigh!* Never mind.

Re:How can you not know Opus/Bloom County? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20361285)

American reaction: "What is this world you speak of?"

Re:How can you not know Opus/Bloom County? (1)

heinousjay (683506) | about 7 years ago | (#20361335)

Ah, you mean the people that come to this American website to bitch and moan at us for not being them?

Salon: No cookie for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360583)

Salon's sight doesn't work without allowing cookies to be set. Sorry I won't be coming back.

-anon

Re:Salon: No cookie for you (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 7 years ago | (#20361011)

As a web developer, I have little sympathy for people who break site navigation and then complain that they can't navigate. There's no sin in using a session cookie to provide dynamic content.

Having said that, my browser supports cookies (Opera on a DS both with and without a cookie management proxy, HoTTProxy) and I still get that message. I'm not very sympathetic to that brokenness, either.

Direct link to the first strip (4, Informative)

jesser (77961) | about 7 years ago | (#20360587)

http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/08/26/opus/i ndex.html [salon.com]

The second "censored" strip is dated next Sunday, so I guess it isn't available yet.

Re:Direct link to the first strip (3, Insightful)

earnest murderer (888716) | about 7 years ago | (#20360679)

So basically the first strip has been banned on context? That because the ideas are presented as satire they're offensive? I mean I understand the sensitivity. That having a corner stone of your religion trotted out and warped into an amusing caricature would be infuriating... But maybe you should review your dogma for things you weren't comfortable with in the first place before buying in.

It ain't like he's drawing pictures of Mohammed with bombs in his turban.

Re:Direct link to the first strip (0, Offtopic)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 7 years ago | (#20360831)

Christianity is constantly under criticism and subject to satire. Somehow, I've gotten over it without becoming irate enough to start blowing people up.

It's not the religion that's the problem. It's the combination of the Islamic religion and the (intolerant to ridicule) culture that tends to grow out from it.

Re:Direct link to the first strip (3, Informative)

Ender_Wiggin (180793) | about 7 years ago | (#20360893)

That's not honest to say that Christians are peaceful and Muslims are not. Christians blow stuff up too and vandalize and are just as intolerant etc.

The difference is how they're percieved in America. You have Christian neighbors, you see nice Christians on TV, Americans have a high opinion of Christians and good experiences and exposure to them. Muslims, in American context, are seen as the Other, the violent people on TV. You can show a violent christian on TV, but the stereotype won't change the same way it seems to change for Muslims, because Americans will think of themselves as Christian, their relatives and neighbors etc. In contrast, Americans think of Afghanistan or 24 when they think of Muslims.

What an utterly ridiculous evasion of reality... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20361001)

That's not honest to say that Christians are peaceful and Muslims are not. Christians blow stuff up too and vandalize and are just as intolerant etc.
What a joke. What an utterly ridiculous evasion of reality....

Re:What an utterly ridiculous evasion of reality.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20361027)

Indeed. We Christians and Jews have blown up how many Muslims to date? A million just in Iraq, right? Just in these past few years?

Muslims have blown up what? Maybe a thousand?

Re:Direct link to the first strip (1, Insightful)

vidarh (309115) | about 7 years ago | (#20361025)

Plenty of Christians blow stuff up. Just look at Britain - despite the recent couple of Muslim attacks, by far the most deaths have been caused by catholics and protestants over Northern Ireland, including a large number of bombings outside Northern Ireland such as the bomb aimed at taking out parts of the British cabinet back in '84. People have short memories.

Trying to pretend Christians are somehow better than Muslims when it comes to violence just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

That's no excuse for those Muslims who do pick violence, but they are still tiny minority of Muslims just as it's a tiny minority of Christians that's been responsible for all the murders committed in the name of Christianity.

Re:Direct link to the first strip (1)

brainburger (792239) | about 7 years ago | (#20361187)

I wont dispute the fact that Christians kill more people than Muslims, and blow a *lot* more stuff up, but they do it for different reasons than the Muslims. I am not aware of any Christian death-threats resulting from satire about Christianity. Even when Christian society did try to suppress comedy, they did it through legal means (eg asking cinemas not to show The Life of Brian, prosecuting punk-band Crass under the blasphemy legislation for Realityasylum etc). OTOH, the underlying reasons for Muslim aggression against western culture are similar to (and worse than) the reasons for the Irish and Basque terrorism of recent decades).

Religion provides a mechanism (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | about 7 years ago | (#20361195)

It's a great way to dehumanise your opponents.

They're not like us, not human, they're infidels. They're not human, they're Jews. They're not human they're muslims/heretics/atheists. It makes mass murder much easier if you don't have to think of the people you're butchering as ordinary people, you can think of them as sub-human, animals to be slaughtered.

It's a pretty standard propaganda technique. It's been used for thousands of years. What saddens me is that it's still successful.

 

Re:Direct link to the first strip (4, Insightful)

zoney_ie (740061) | about 7 years ago | (#20361257)

Trying to pretend religion is the cause of humankind's problems and that people would all get along merrily if it were not for religion is just as absurd. It's as absurd as those who decry the "intolerance" of the religious while themselves being intolerant of the religious.

Re:Direct link to the first strip (1)

Ender_Wiggin (180793) | about 7 years ago | (#20360923)

Why are you indicting the religion? These newspapers self-edited and removed the comic without anyone asking. Muslims were somewhat surprisied to hear about this after the fact.

If you're going to rehash your arguements for the Danish cartoons uproar, I suppose you don't think the fact that Denmark had soldiers in Iraq while the cartoons were circulating had ANYTHING to do with it? It was a catalyst for anger over the war, and the double-standards the Danish were maintaining, censoring anti-Semitic speech (rightly so I might add) but endorsing anti-Muslim speech. Yes, the center-right Danish PM pretty much agreed with the content, making the issue worse.

Its in context for once (2)

Chlorus (1146335) | about 7 years ago | (#20360611)

I, for one, don't welcome our Islamic overlords.

Link to tiny version (-1)

giafly (926567) | about 7 years ago | (#20360627)

The Sunday cartoonist "Opus" is no conservative but he has just let himself go enough to joke a little about Islam. Bad move! A lot of papers that normally take it will not run this Sunday's cartoon. I have reproduced it above.

There is a full-size version [1] here [slashdot.org]

As you can see, it is not in fact laughing at Islam. It is laughing at his fellow Berkeleyites, if anything. - Stop The ACLU blog [stoptheaclu.com]
I dislike censorship, so if you want offensive cartoons on this subject, visit 7chan, gaia online etc., (but not 4ailchan due to moderation). Or turn off image filtering and look on the second page of Married to Children [google.co.uk] . Some cartoons were inspired by a Fark.com photoshop contest, but I can't find it.

Correct Image Link to Cartoon (2, Informative)

giafly (926567) | about 7 years ago | (#20360669)

The Sunday cartoonist "Opus" is no conservative but he has just let himself go enough to joke a little about Islam. Bad move! A lot of papers that normally take it will not run this Sunday's cartoon. I have reproduced it above.

There is a full-size version [1] here [imageshack.us]

As you can see, it is not in fact laughing at Islam. It is laughing at his fellow Berkeleyites, if anything. - Stop The ACLU blog
I dislike censorship, so if you want offensive cartoons on this subject, visit 7chan, gaia online etc., (but not 4ailchan due to moderation). Or turn off image filtering and look on the second page of Married to Children [google.co.uk] . Some cartoons were inspired by a Fark.com photoshop contest, but I can't find it.

Please mod parent "over-rated" to hide it and mod this correct version up, if you wish.

Oh no (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360647)

A comic strip making a true reference to the negative parts that are Islam - let's not publish that one, but not give a fuck about our morals when a strip about christianity comes our way.
Ironically, this blunt hypocrisy reminds me about the way muslims blindly defend the same bad parts of their religion. Perhaps a mod should moderate my opinion posted here - out of respect for islam, not fear, ofcourse - just to clearify the whole thing.

Re:Oh no (1, Informative)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 7 years ago | (#20360843)

I don't know, I can understand the reason, and I can summarize it like this: Christians aren't going to start murdering innocents if you make fun of them in a comic.

Re:Oh no (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 7 years ago | (#20360949)

Are you sure about that? I don't think I'd trust some of the more fundamental Christians not to do it.

Re:Oh no (1)

CubeNudger (984277) | about 7 years ago | (#20361209)

Well, there's this direct precedent [wikipedia.org] of people being murdered over a barely offensive cartoon to Muslims. As far as I know, that's never happened with the loony fundamentalist Christians (who sort of seem to seek getting made fun of, let's them fit themselves into this "victim" frame).

Re:Oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20361293)

The *only* reason that sort of thing doesn't happen (anymore) in Christian countries is that religion has been marginalized as a force in people's lives and most western governments are secular. Right now the Islamic world is about where the Christian world was in the 14th century on a social maturity level, there isn't any cure for that but time.

Re:Oh no (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 7 years ago | (#20361151)

"Christians aren't going to start murdering innocents if you make fun of them in a comic."

Does the phrase "Lord's Resistance Army" not ring a bell?

humm.. (1)

joeava (1147727) | about 7 years ago | (#20360767)

should this news article be moderated as troll bait?

Almost certainly (1)

CubeNudger (984277) | about 7 years ago | (#20361199)

Well, yes.

Salon cannot set a cookie on your browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20360835)

Are the operators of Salon still living in the -ing 90's when that kind of crap was still okay?

This is news? (1)

Ender_Wiggin (180793) | about 7 years ago | (#20360865)

How is this news? If anything, it's the sumbitter trying to make a big deal over a newspaper declining to run a tasteless comic.

If the same newspapers refused to run a comic strip that made fun of Jews, would slashdot also post the mirror on the front page? Is there some sort of implcit or subconscious bigotry at work?

Ever seen the nanny? (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 7 years ago | (#20360975)

Yeah yeah, commercial sitcom, we are above that. Sure but in that show plenty of jokes are made about jews. No problem. Other entertainment makes fun of religion as well, and apart from a few protests and boycots it just goes by. Life of Brain made fun of jesus, how many people were killed in the following riots?

In "the west" in modern times we have more or less come to an understanding that it is NOT okay to inflict your believes upon everyone else. It is also acceptable to be made fun off, even if you do not like it because freedom of speech is more important then your hurt feelings. Because sooner or later everything is going to hurt someone.

And suddenly the west finds itself with a group that seeks to go back to the dark ages. I am NOT talking about islam here, I am talking about religous fundementalists who once again seek to enforce their worldview upon everyone else, through force if need be. These fundies exist among ALL religions right now, jews in Israel voicing opions that would make hitler blush, christian fundies seeking to censor all media, india got its share of religious extremist and offcourse there is a sub-group of muslims seeking to make sharia the law worldwide.

Yet something really dangerous is occuring. The jews are far too small a group to be noticed, the christians are too corrupt, the hindoes barely matter in the western world but the muslims, now they seem to have gained a lot of control.

For instance, holland does not like the pope (catholic), not even the dutch catholic do. Any attempt by the pope to say that holland should do this or that is just laughed off. Yet if muslims speak, well, then the dutch quake in their boots. How come the catholic religous leader is safe to ignore but muslim religous leaders are not?

Offcourse there are differences, the pope doesn't even control his own country Italy much (see gay marriage and abortion laws), while entire countries are controlled by Islam. It is safe to make fun of a old guy in a silly dress, not so safe of the leaders who control your oil supply.

Your question is wether it would have been the same if this comic made fun of jews (why this religion and not say christianity, the majority religon in the US), then tell me this. When was the last time such a comic was banned? A movie? A play? A book? A song?

Judge the banned material on its own merits, then ask yourselve if the same reaction would have occured has another religion een involved.

You can either have freedom of speech or you can try to appease one group with long toes. But be aware, the first time you do that, another group will take notice, and will want to be protected as well. If you had your way, pretty soon you would no longer be able to publish anything anyone disapproved off.

That might suit you, afterall you call Opus, about as harmless a comic as you can get, tasteless. What next, censor garfield for walking around without pants?

Re:Ever seen the nanny? (1)

alxbtk (1009019) | about 7 years ago | (#20361131)

Problem is, the censorship is because of the newspapers who refused to publish the comics, not because of the religion or its followers being made fun of.

You wrote : "Yet something really dangerous is occuring. The jews are far too small a group to be noticed, the christians are too corrupt, the hindoes barely matter in the western world but the muslims, now they seem to have gained a lot of control."

Come on... Jews "far too small a group to be noticed"? In the western world Jew lobbies are far more powerful than Muslim ones. I'm not trolling, just being realistic. For example here in France a radio host was fired a few years ago for a (bad taste) joke about the concentration camps. Maybe this was justified, anyway Jewish community may be small but has no problems being noticed when it wants to.

Let's not forget that here, the so-called "censorship" is due to newspapers refusing to publish it, not because of Muslims pressuring to have the comics banned. I don't see any proof of Muslims gaining "a lot of control". If anything, it shows the current obsession of western media with them. It shows how they're, again, spreading FUD. With an F as in FEAR.

The problem with the caricatures of Mahomet was not really that any representation of the prophet is forbidden. You'll often find them in satirical newspapers in the middle East, after all. What disturbed a lot of people was the fact that they were associating Mahomet with terrorism. The WIDE majority of Muslims are peaceful and condemn terrorism, of course it disturbed them, and they told so. Then this whole thing was everywhere in the Western media. Only after that, some fundamentalist assholes in the middle East tried to use this affair to serve their own propaganda, to galvanize crowds, but that's a completely different story.

It's not forbidden to make fun of Muslims. http://www.cbc.ca/littlemosque/ [www.cbc.ca] Now airing in France, too. Nobody complained.

Should I post this as a coward? Oh well, who cares about karma?

Re:Ever seen the nanny? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20361181)

In "the west" in modern times we have more or less come to an understanding that it is NOT okay to inflict your beliefs upon everyone else.

People say this like it should be the solution to all the problems, but it is the root of the problem. "The West" has decided that the best way for us to all just get along is not to interfere with each other, and we insist that other groups accept that philosophy. "Fundamentalists" have decided that the best way for us to get along is to recognize that we are a common community and need to play by common rules. "The West" thinks that a separate-but-equal doctrine is just fine. "Fundamentalists" think that the community needs to be put ahead of individual rights.

I don't mean to imply that one side is right or wrong. I mean to say that "it is NOT okay to inflict your beliefs upon everyone else" is a belief, and the secular West regularly tries to inflict it upon religious communities of all faiths.

Re:This is news? (1)

vidarh (309115) | about 7 years ago | (#20360993)

I assume you think that comic made fun of muslims.

But why? It did not ridicule their beliefs in any way. In fact, it started off by distinguishing "radical islamist" from even muslim fundamentalism. The only way it possibly made fun of anyone was in caricaturing the way some muslims dress. Is that not allowed? We caricature how non-muslims dress all the time. But it makes no fun of muslims beliefs.

The butt of the joke are two fictional white middle class characters - one whose chauvinistic tendencies show through when he is distinctly happy at the prospect of her submitting to his will, and one whose apparently shopping around for a religion that might fit her based on superficial factors. That she's not seriously following the teachings of the religions she tries on we find out immediately, when Steve mentions she's tried being an amish nudist, and so we even have no reason to believe her idea of "radical islamism" is even in any way an accurate portayal.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the same newspapers would run a strip like that if it used jews or amish or christians instead of muslims.

They are being over sensitive.

Re:This is news? (1)

CubeNudger (984277) | about 7 years ago | (#20361191)

I think that a leading American newspaper caving into the implied threat of violence by fanatical Muslims (and there's no question, that's what this is about [wikipedia.org] ) is certainly noteworthy, if not exactly surprising. After so many major American papers refused to run the barely offensive Danish cartoons, this sort of cowardice in the fourth estate hardly shocks me. Saddens, yes, but shocks, no.

TF Link (2, Informative)

1u3hr (530656) | about 7 years ago | (#20360871)

So may inane links to blogs, why not direct links to the strips?

So after screwing around at Salon.com:
Today's strip is here [salon.com] . And all strips here [salon.com] .

And, yes, it runs Linux (-1, Offtopic)

bl8n8r (649187) | about 7 years ago | (#20360943)

obviously.

Opus?? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 7 years ago | (#20360945)

What the hell is that going to do for my Sunday hangover? I think I'll stick with aspirin, but thanks for thinking of me.

REPEATER NUMBER 17 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20361015)

begin 644 passwd.txt
MC`T$`P,"`-=<$-"S7GE@R<!=[*J5J')Q+CD5#BIO^#7NH!PO. VOF0?(>1\IW
MZZH?T3AP.BD&K+Z-?1R)2&5?#_0FEBVX*9((<7()-Q!#<,NCM 3P1VXK8?T:D
M@"VZU]\W9(^^=H<K30*90ST\'&`L=*0%'`Y_9[XDX*_E!8GQD EBW9WBLIZLV
MC5][3CVMPRREE8#;SB$57"F,4>!@!V@!R5%M09G@?=B63_/UL NYY.%XESGQ)
M#[?Z?OJTA8?4#O_W;OU2D,G.EGT#;36X*6;B,TQ4=@=V\O%>7 UHL.C&Z#^AB
MK`P7(*ZX<S_7Z/[;QYG#./_H6P)EN]!YY%]E@I].25]D;GYQ, 1)P:YD1[:E=
A&):UA;QL6<"B%]6&.E(R"2O,,OP!D18R&3FU.D#,/*>[
`
end

Who cares? (0, Flamebait)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | about 7 years ago | (#20361067)

The comic is never funny or interesting, and takes up a whole third of a page. The art isn't even any good.

It's all too common now (5, Interesting)

smallpaul (65919) | about 7 years ago | (#20361177)

Western publishers are self-censoring anything remotely offensive to Muslims. This is just evidence that threats, intimidation and terrorism work. Americans will go to any lengths to "fight terrorism" by invading countries basically uninvolved in terror, but given the chance to simply stand up and say: "we won't be intimidated by threats" the press folds like a three legged card table. Grow a pair!

Re:It's all too common now (1)

CubeNudger (984277) | about 7 years ago | (#20361219)

The press is even more cowardly in standing up for themselves than American liberal politicians. And that's saying something.

U.S. media *thrive* on anti-Moslem rants (3, Insightful)

ibn_khaldun (814417) | about 7 years ago | (#20361249)

Anyone who thinks that the U.S. media back down from anything offensive to Moslems has clearly never listened to talk radio or read conservative political commentators. These folks would have a great deal of dead air and missing prose if they couldn't offend Moslems in ever more creative ways (suggesting nuking Mecca is a popular one, for example...)

But meanwhile, I completely agree with much of the previous commentary: this strip is making fun on two individuals, and is not remotely comparable to the Danish cartoons. Most Moslems would find it funny and the rest, well, some people don't find anything funny. And the stereotyping is mild compared to what the strip has done, for example, with New Age hippies, Leisure Suit Larry lounge lizards, penguins, and so forth.

[Usually not relevant but despite the Slashdot moniker, I'm neither Arab nor Moslem, though I've lived for a while in the Middle East. I just happen to like the theories of the dude [wikipedia.org] I've stolen the name from and he's like, sort of dead...]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>