If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Newsweek's new 'THIS IS AN OUTRAGE' cover   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 479
    More: Spiffy, Newsweek, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, opinion pieces, Mr. Carter, cults  
•       •       •

31895 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2012 at 3:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



479 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-17 04:28:57 PM

whidbey: gilgigamesh: It happens.

Come on...I didn't say anything about putting Jones in an internment camp.

So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?


While I didn't see the movie, I can't believe it is remotely close to exceeding the protections of the first amendment.

As for those kwazy Muslims, I think this is more complicated than offensive cartoons and bad youtube videos. People in places like Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia have legitimate grievances against the west in general, and against Obama in particular.

But let's just say they muddy their message when they make it about religion, and go on a rampage about offensive cartoons and bad youtube videos.

As opposed to actual problems that actually exist, like our policy of deliberately targeting drone strikes against funerals and first responders.
 
2012-09-17 04:29:01 PM

Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?


The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."
 
2012-09-17 04:29:02 PM

Timmy the Tumor: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah but the movie and its attempts to offend are very much from a very ignorant right-wing perspective. To say they "aren't helping" isn't even in the same ballpark.

So what? Do you want to ban "Mein Kampf" from bookshelves? "The Communist Manifesto"? Really? A judicial order making this guy apologize and make restitution? Are you aware there is *zero* chance such an order would ever survive an appeal?

Actually, I think that's a great idea. He should be forced to donate 50% of all proceeds to Muslim support groups.


Some movie that's not in wide release and has about 14 minutes up on YouTube? I guess that will be like six bucks or something.
 
2012-09-17 04:29:15 PM
i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 04:30:21 PM

gilgigamesh: As opposed to actual problems that actually exist, like our policy of deliberately targeting drone strikes against funerals and first responders.


[citation please]
 
2012-09-17 04:30:31 PM

whidbey: gilgigamesh: It happens.

Come on...I didn't say anything about putting Jones in an internment camp.

So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?


Yes.

I see no value in the trailer. It is execrable. Worse than Gigli mating with Ishtar. Fourteen minutes of nauseating twaddle designed to instill anger. It is a puerile, dangerous and fundamentally idiotic video.

But it is absolutely protected under the First Amendment.

/Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I can ban it.
 
2012-09-17 04:30:34 PM

gilgigamesh: whidbey: gilgigamesh: It happens.

Come on...I didn't say anything about putting Jones in an internment camp.

So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?

While I didn't see the movie, I can't believe it is remotely close to exceeding the protections of the first amendment.

As for those kwazy Muslims, I think this is more complicated than offensive cartoons and bad youtube videos. People in places like Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia have legitimate grievances against the west in general, and against Obama in particular.

But let's just say they muddy their message when they make it about religion, and go on a rampage about offensive cartoons and bad youtube videos.

As opposed to actual problems that actually exist, like our policy of deliberately targeting drone strikes against funerals and first responders.


While I certainly do not disagree, I'm saying we have an obligation to condemn efforts like Jones' movie. And I don't mean just a "strongly worded letter." B*tch should suffer for it, publicly.
 
2012-09-17 04:30:43 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 04:31:23 PM
dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-09-17 04:31:39 PM

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."


That's the test for sexually explicit material and that's only one prong. You left out the others, one of which is whether the work "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" as defined by state/local law. Does the work as a whole, using "community standards" appeal primarily to the "prurient interest"? Want to take another swing, champ?
 
2012-09-17 04:32:23 PM

Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?


OK, he's definitely trolling us.

I'm starting to feel like a fish that gets thrown back, only to look at the lure 5 seconds later and say, "Hot damn! Free worm!"

*bows to the master*
 
2012-09-17 04:32:30 PM

Frosted Flake: whidbey: gilgigamesh: It happens.

Come on...I didn't say anything about putting Jones in an internment camp.

So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?

Yes.

I see no value in the trailer. It is execrable. Worse than Gigli mating with Ishtar. Fourteen minutes of nauseating twaddle designed to instill anger. It is a puerile, dangerous and fundamentally idiotic video.

But it is absolutely protected under the First Amendment.

/Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I can ban it.


Well, it wouldn't do any good to ban it here, anyway. Banning it isn't the issue. Recognizing that someone is doing his part to ensure a bad situation become worse is much more the case.
 
2012-09-17 04:33:34 PM

Frosted Flake: I see no value in the trailer. It is execrable. Worse than Gigli mating with Ishtar.


I've actually seen Ishtar, so I find your claim hard to believe.
 
2012-09-17 04:33:49 PM

optimus_grime: hiding behind some imaginary freedom of speech is pathetic.

if you cross the line, you will get hurt, that's how the real world works.


um, you do realize that it just means you are free to say what you want...and the government won't throw you in jail or infringe on your rights for saying it?

it never has offered anymore protection than that.

I am free to say you are an idiot. I am not free from you getting mad on drooling on your computer.


/snark
 
2012-09-17 04:35:07 PM

Corvus: gilgigamesh: As opposed to actual problems that actually exist, like our policy of deliberately targeting drone strikes against funerals and first responders.

[citation please]


[citation provided]
 
2012-09-17 04:36:06 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 04:37:00 PM

whidbey: Well, it wouldn't do any good to ban it here, anyway. Banning it isn't the issue. Recognizing that someone is doing his part to ensure a bad situation become worse is much more the case.


What would do good is recognizing that the actions of a small group don't necessarily represent the actions of a much larger populace. Since we can only control what we ourselves recognize, we need to realize that "lives in middle east" != "i like to storm embassies."


I'm looking in your direction, Newsweek.
 
2012-09-17 04:37:06 PM

gilgigamesh: *bows to the master*


Oh knock it off. Are these comments really that far-fetched?

You're saying we have no obligation to deal with Jones on our end?
 
2012-09-17 04:37:13 PM
img.dailymail.co.uk

♫ ♩ ♬ Hakuna Matata...what a wonderful phrase!
 
2012-09-17 04:37:58 PM

Nabb1: Timmy the Tumor: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah but the movie and its attempts to offend are very much from a very ignorant right-wing perspective. To say they "aren't helping" isn't even in the same ballpark.

So what? Do you want to ban "Mein Kampf" from bookshelves? "The Communist Manifesto"? Really? A judicial order making this guy apologize and make restitution? Are you aware there is *zero* chance such an order would ever survive an appeal?

Actually, I think that's a great idea. He should be forced to donate 50% of all proceeds to Muslim support groups.

Some movie that's not in wide release and has about 14 minutes up on YouTube? I guess that will be like six bucks or something.




that'sthejoke.gif
 
2012-09-17 04:38:37 PM

Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?


that has to be trolling, come on, he is suggesting using a socially conservative religious law to make someone apologize for making fun of social conservatives.
 
2012-09-17 04:38:40 PM
s12.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 04:39:26 PM

Nabb1: whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."

That's the test for sexually explicit material and that's only one prong. You left out the others, one of which is whether the work "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" as defined by state/local law. Does the work as a whole, using "community standards" appeal primarily to the "prurient interest"? Want to take another swing, champ?


Swing at what, exactly? The movie is obscene. You're welcome to disagree.
And I already stated the issue isn't about banning it.
 
2012-09-17 04:40:10 PM
i1222.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 04:40:13 PM

whidbey: gilgigamesh: *bows to the master*

Oh knock it off. Are these comments really that far-fetched?

You're saying we have no obligation to deal with Jones on our end?


Hot damn! Free wor-...

Hey. Waaaiiit a minute.
 
2012-09-17 04:40:23 PM
This has been one of the most radical threads I've read in a while. All the Newsweek covers are cracking me up. Let's make this a thing... Too good.
 
2012-09-17 04:40:24 PM

Headso: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

that has to be trolling, come on, he is suggesting using a socially conservative religious law to make someone apologize for making fun of social conservatives.


I guess you didn't read my reply. Read it again. And no, this isn't a troll.
 
2012-09-17 04:42:41 PM
i253.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 04:43:53 PM

Nabb1: Demetrius: Nabb1: An apology for these continued "abuses" of freedom of speech from the Secretary of State may be in order.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

No, but there's no reason for our leaders to apologize for our Constitutional rights because some people choose to act like a bunch of savages when someone says something they don't like.


Which American leader(s) apologized for our Constitutional rights?
 
2012-09-17 04:44:36 PM

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."

That's the test for sexually explicit material and that's only one prong. You left out the others, one of which is whether the work "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" as defined by state/local law. Does the work as a whole, using "community standards" appeal primarily to the "prurient interest"? Want to take another swing, champ?

Swing at what, exactly? The movie is obscene. You're welcome to disagree.
And I already stated the issue isn't about banning it.


Have you even seen the thing in its entirety? Is it a porn film? Because if not, the Miller test really is inapplicable. It appears that you're just calling something "obscene" because a bunch of people who freak right the f*ck out about just about anything on a regular basis freaked right the f*ck out about this (and, in all likelihood, this film is just a red herring for a coordinated, planned series of attacks and not a spontaneous bit of outrage). People post inflammatory comments in FARK religion threads all the damned time.
 
2012-09-17 04:44:46 PM

Coco LaFemme: bdub77: Newsweek before the 21st century:

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 395x265]

Newsweek 2012:

[roblorinov.files.wordpress.com image 400x225]

Basically this. My dad used to get a subscription to Newsweek, but stopped about 10 years ago, I think. It's steadily gone down hill, rapidly approaching the molten core of the earth.


for those that don't know Tina Brown now runs Newsweek. i too let my subscription go.
 
2012-09-17 04:44:48 PM

gilgigamesh: Corvus: gilgigamesh: As opposed to actual problems that actually exist, like our policy of deliberately targeting drone strikes against funerals and first responders.

[citation please]

[citation provided]


Wow nice Guardian article. Got anything more reliable like the Weekly World news? So tell me how do we know the first responders/funeral civilians where the primary target not a mistake or collateral damage? Not one part in the article did they have proof of that they just assumed anyone who got hit was the actual target which is not true.

Also this statement:

- a practice that inexcusably continues despite revelations that the Obama administration has redefined "militants" to mean "all military-age males in a strike zone"


Is an out and out lie. Obama is using the same definition as before and that isn't it. If they have information otherwise they are not defined as "militants". SO they are lying in this article.

Do you have an article that isn't lying up and down? And not from a paper that is the Fox news of the UK?
 
2012-09-17 04:45:28 PM

hinten: Angry, in and at their pants.

[www.gunslot.com image 479x386]


I'd fatwah all over that.
 
2012-09-17 04:46:05 PM

kbronsito: Silly Jesus: kbronsito: Angry mob lashes out against people that had nothing to do with the source of their anger damage property and kill four (OMG HOW BARBARIC THIS IS AN OUTRAGE).

Angry mob in charge of the most powerful military in the world lashes out and bomb's country that had nothing to do with what they were angry about needlessly sacrificing civilians and troops, causing untold property damage and death (Meh. C'est la vie).

I see where you're going with this...and as much as you disagree with it, our reasons for doing it (going to war) were still better than "you talked about my sky wizard and it hurt my feelings so I need to kill someone."

Which reasons? Lining Halliburton's coffers with gold from our treasury? Giving Cheney, GWB and company a way to test their dumbass theories about geopolitics by letting them secure a permanent US military presence in the heart of the Mideast? Allowing GWB to avenge the assassination attempt on his dad so he could feel like a man instead of a boy? And its not like the people calling for the invasion didn't tap into the religious fears and fervor of America's Christians to get what they wanted.


Yep. While stupid, all of those (except the Christian end times excuse) are better in my book than "random person I don't know in some state in some country that I've never been to made a shiatty movie about my imaginary friend."
 
2012-09-17 04:47:01 PM

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 360x480]


thread closed.
 
2012-09-17 04:48:53 PM
s13.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 04:49:00 PM
You know, we have the ability to identify computer by their source IP address to identify their country.

It would not be that hard for Google, LiveLeak, Youtube, Bing etc to have a simple Inappropriate Content Report button with a Blasphemy option served to countries with Muslim state faiths so when they see something that offends them, they can hit the button and it goes away... for those countries. No one from those countries would be able to see that content once the Blasphemy card has been played.

Google, LiveLeak, etc could even go a step further and announce that the poster of the blasphemy will be severely punished (unspoken: by having all his content unable to be seen in Muslim countries).

Somehow, I don't think this will be sufficient. The "outrage" is an excuse, not a cause.
 
2012-09-17 04:49:13 PM

downstairs: It wasn't horrible 3-ish years ago, but it rapidly (like in one week) turned into People Magazine But Sorta About Politics And Stuff. We cancelled.


it almost went belly up, Jon Meacham left and Tina Brown came on board.
 
2012-09-17 04:50:33 PM

plausdeny: It would not be that hard for Google, LiveLeak, Youtube, Bing etc to have a simple Inappropriate Content Report button with a Blasphemy option served to countries with Muslim state faiths so when they see something that offends them, they can hit the button and it goes away... for those countries. No one from those countries would be able to see that content once the Blasphemy card has been played.


I doubt that any of the protestors actually saw the movie. They heard from someone that such a film was made.
 
2012-09-17 04:50:36 PM
Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab. 
 
2012-09-17 04:51:07 PM

eraser8: I've actually seen Ishtar, so I find your claim hard to believe.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 04:51:20 PM

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."

Oh, and what is the legal definition of "obscene" and how does this particular film fit it?

The Miller Test states one of the conditions be that a work be "utterly without redeeming social value."


Tyler Perry is farked.
 
2012-09-17 04:53:04 PM
This is one of the best threads in a while....very impressive, spontaneous 'Photo-Shop' thread!
 
2012-09-17 04:53:07 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-09-17 04:55:49 PM
s8.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 04:57:22 PM
tg3k.com
 
2012-09-17 04:58:14 PM

I_C_Weener: Good job to those of you who showed up with your sense of humor.  Better luck next time to those that left their's in the politics tab.


THIS. Thanks to all of you who contributed. I have laughed a lot this afternoon. I wish I had your skillz with the Photoshop.
 
2012-09-17 04:58:57 PM
s10.postimage.org
 
2012-09-17 05:00:14 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-09-17 05:03:08 PM

whidbey: loki see loki do: whidbey:
So. You think everyone should just "get over" something as needlessly socially inflammatory as that movie? What value do you see in the film that should circumvent any concerns about it?

Yes.
I'm pretty sure there is no law requiring a private venture have redeeming value.

Yeah actually there is. You should look up the legal definition of "obscene."


"I know it when I see it" ?
 
Displayed 50 of 479 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report