Ceci n'est pas...er, freedom of speech.

Although I am vehemently opposed to the mating of religion and politics, I find myself uncomfortable in the anti-theist community. I can find many reasons to lambaste religion and do so loudly and often, but I'm hesitant to be associated with "atheists" as a whole. Internet atheism is largely young, white, and male, and thus plagued with all the things you would expect such a group to be plagued with. Is it just me, or does it feel a bit hostile in here?

In light of the violence that occurred in the wake of The Innocence of Muslims, another game of "Let's all draw Mohammed and piss off the silly Ay-rabs!" has caught fire among skeptics and religious critics everywhere. I'm an artist, and an agnostic, so people sort of expect me to want to join in on this game. I do not want to join in on this game.

Although it isn't only atheists involved in this, the "draw Mohammed" meme speaks to a certain childishness that I see as rampant in the atheist community. I fail to see the logic behind repeatedly inciting the extremist fringes of a religion. There's all the lofty rhetoric about freedom of speech, but at its core it's nothing more than a schoolyard spat.

Granted, this is pretty clever.

Insist on your right to poke the bear all you want--doesn't mean the bear ain't gonna bite your damn hand off if you keep doing it. That's kind of what bears do.

I assume the idea is to demonstrate that those who want to draw cartoons of Mohammed will not be censored, even in the face of violence, and that inviting a bunch of people to participate in a Facebook event is a show of strength in numbers. There seems to be a bit of a disconnection, however, between the idea's inception and its intended result. Let's break it down, shall we?

A. Visual depictions of the prophet Mohammed are discouraged.
B. A non-Muslim draws a caricature of Mohammed. It is likely unflattering.
C. A segment of the Muslim population gets angry, loud, and violent.
D. More caricatures of Mohammed are made.

From step D, I think we have two outcomes here.

E1: An infinite loop of cartoons that result in death threats, anger, and violence that result in cartoons that result in death threats, anger, and violence.
E2: The previously violent and angry Muslims realize they will never be able to stem the tide of Mohammed cartoons, renounce their violent ways, reform their religion and culture, and we all hold hands and coexist happily forever after, and there are rainbows and wheeeee!

I DON'T THINK WE THOUGHT THIS ALL THE WAY THROUGH, GUYS.

The reason that making more offensive cartoons isn't gonna work is because it's not really all about the cartoons. It amazes me, given the anti-theist love for critical thinking, how little of that is present here.

High-school-me got pissed whenever I heard "The terrorists hate our freedom," and yet I laughed at this:

I failed to see the correlation between the two. Religion was a proxy through which decades (centuries, really, depending on how much context you want) of political tension were expressed on 9/11. After learning a little bit about the US's history of mucking about in the Middle East, and examining bin Laden's statements regarding Palestine, and taking a look at Islam itself, suddenly this wasn't so funny anymore. Suddenly it was simplistic; a product of whitewashed history.

The U.S. is largely responsible for the turmoil in the Middle East. The fundamentalism and oppressive cultures that exist in some predominantly Muslim states did not simply emerge from the religion unaided. The idea of violent political revolution is particularly appealing to those living in war-torn and poverty stricken areas--desperate people, in other words. Fundamentalism claims to target the root cause of that desperation (namely the West), and thus it spreads.

There is tension. There is anger. Though I don't agree with violent expressions of that anger, the anger itself is kind of justified. So it's important to me that people realize when they make a Mohammed cartoon it's not really the Mohammed cartoon that's the problem. It's the smug dismissal of an entire culture from a privileged, white standpoint. It sends a clear message--we've been fucking you for years, which we'll conveniently forget about when you retaliate, and we have no real interest in coexisting.

So here's the part where I make a bunch of stupid disclaimers I shouldn't have to make, because as an atheist and an American I'm basically required by law to think that Islam is fundamentally a horrible thing and I don't think that and I don't want to hear about why I'm supposed to think that.

I am not trying to erase the struggles of those who are persecuted and censored and sometimes hurt or killed for something that isn't a crime.

I am not denying that the Islamic world has serious cultural problems, evident in the horrific medieval practices like female circumcision and the stoning of LGBTQ individuals and the treatment of rape victims and and and and.

I am not saying that the correct reaction to what you view as an offensive depiction of your prophet is anything other than looking at something else.

What I am doing is pointing out that these smug, stubborn little drawings aren't accomplishing anything productive. That maybe making these cartoons to incite violence and make all of Islam look awful is going to drive an even bigger wedge between the Muslim world and the secular West. That maybe, just maybe, given the shared history of eye-for-an-eye political manipulation and warmongering and violence, a bigger wedge is the last thing we need.

And I'm adding that people like Sam Harris--lauded as one of the Four Horsemen--claiming that Islamophobia isn't a real thing completely erases the struggles of people who experience it on a daily basis and never did anything to warrant it. (And by the way, Sam Harris, the day that a white male gets to tell other people what forms of discrimination do and don't exist is the day that you motherfuckers don't run everything.)

And I'm getting to my central point that maybe there's something a little hypocritical and petty about the behavior of one distrusted minority when they incite and insult another distrusted minority. These Mohammed cartoons are accomplishing something, that's for sure--they essentially ensure that the extremism on the fringes of Islam is never going to die. They alienate the moderate Muslims who could be potential allies in the struggle to combat ignorance and theocracy. And they guarantee that the Muslims who want to take responsibility for the ills of the culture their religion has cultivated are always going to be drowned out by the ones making death threats and burning books.

My dislike of Mohammed caricatures doesn't stem from a desire to see them censored. The line between "free speech" and "being an asshole" is often blurry and I don't advocate trying to bring it into focus.

Should you be able to draw a cartoon of Mohammed without facing the threat of violence? Absolutely yes.

But would your time maybe be a little bit better spent on other things? Opening up dialogue with moderate Muslims. Reading a little history and then putting it into context. Or just asking yourself why you want to draw a caricature of Mohammed until you come up with something with a little more depth than "herpa durr because First Amendment, y'all!"

This is my opinion, Internet! Don't dispute it!

I have a confession to make.

I like to argue on the Internet.

We all know it's a Sisyphean task and of course we're all above that silly pointless shit, but the truth is I'm not above much. When the rock hits the bottom I stroll cheerfully right after it. It's kind of fun, honestly, and almost always a challenge. And sometimes hilarity ensues.

 I truly believe that the Internet is humanity's best shot right now. It's given us potential that has been discussed to death. The problem is, as we all know by now, it has a tendency to bring out some serious crippling ugliness in other humans.

For most, the anonymity provided by the Internet is a flimsy illusion, but it doesn't stop us from shedding the burdens of behavioral expectations as soon as we're in front of the screen. When Facebook asks what's on our minds we almost never hesitate to answer like we would in the physical world. Being connected to each other through social media facilitates conversations we would never have without it, but it also allows us to get away with acting like little wieners if we feel like it. In real life, I'm loudmouthed, but reasonable and generally hesitant to offend. On the webs, I'm more prone to fits of outrage thinly disguised as sarcasm. I imagine I'm on the "Restricted" list for quite a few of my conservative Facebook friends.

What's on my mind? Glad you asked, Facebook. I'll argue and opine all day given the chance, because generally when I have a strong opinion on something I have some sort of justification. And if you're interested, I will gladly share that justification with you. I like debating.

Here's what I don't fucking like: people who use bitch-ass little cop-out phrases because they love to state their opinions but can't form a logical argument or respond to any of the points in order to defend themselves.

1. "I'm not going to explain to you why I believe this, you'll just shoot it down."
2. "To each their own."
3. "Let's agree to disagree."
4. "If you don't like it, block me."
and finally, my absolute favorite,
5. "I'm entitled to my opinion."

I like to argue, and I like to fuck with people. I especially like to argue and fuck with people who say shit like that. It's kind of fun to whip someone into a furor when they blurt their opinions without foreseeing any consequences. Or if they do expect a challenge, they don't expect to have to defend it with, I dunno, facts and information and petty shit like that.

That's where that old chestnut comes in: "I'm entitled to my opinion." Yes. Yes you are. Good on you for figuring that much out. But here's a tip--if you don't want people to question your beliefs or disagree with you, then keep them to yourself. If it bothers you when skeptics question your moonbat posts about Creationism or quantum woo, don't post that shit. If you don't like explaining your beliefs to people who disagree with them, it's okay to just be quiet sometimes.

You're on the Internet now, and we're not here to coddle you and validate you with a circlejerk of likes and upvotes and +1s and whatall. Your opinion is not a royal decree.

People are gonna question your beliefs. People are going to disagree with you. This is a normal thing, and it will not stop if you throw a fit. But if you don't want it to happen, the trick is don't get on the Internet and blurt your opinions out. And for the love of science, stop bitching and moaning when someone challenges you.

I've been publicly insulted and trash talked because of Facebook posts. I've lost friends because of stupid Internet arguments. Not because I'm an asshole to people. I have been accused of condescension, and though I won't invalidate another person's perception, any condescension on my part is not intentional. I don't resort to insults or ad hominem attacks or logical fallacies designed to make me feel like I won. Sometimes I'm sarcastic, but I'm never mean. I back up my statements with verifiable facts and clear lines of logic, and in all but a handful of my regular sites the responses are ad hominem attacks, dismissals, and lame attempts to look superior.

This shit must die.

I'm going to pull out the old conservative favorite: personal responsibility. 


Not "personal responsibility" as in "never needing help from another human despite any existing socioeconomic circumstances beyond your control," but "personal responsibility" as in "owning up to the shit that comes out of your mouth/keyboard."

We've been given a platform to instantly share our thoughts with an extended social circle. We've been given the capacity to reason and the capacity to express ideas. What we haven't been given is the ability to argue properly.

Maybe I'm cynical, and of course I only speak for the small sample of my own culture that I know personally, but I feel like we aren't given tools to use our First Amendment rights to their fullest potential. The ability to debate well. An open and questioning mind. New perspectives. An understanding of the limits of one's own knowledge. Respect and courtesy--or at least the ability to fake 'em--toward your opposition.

When the dissociative quality of the Internet meets our reluctance to hold our tongues, admit limitations, or make concessions, our egos can produce some rather explosive results. And you know what? I think it's okay to get upset about an argument that isn't personal. Certainly there have been times when my hands shook as I typed out responses. Anyone who claims that getting emotional during a debate is not allowed is just being a superior asshole (people with a true sense of emotional calm and mastery don't fucking brag about it, so if someone tells you they 'don't get offended and don't understand why anyone else does,' they're lying).

It's also okay to say, "I feel like this argument is going in circles and I have nothing to add to the points I've already stated." It's okay to say, "I guess I haven't done enough research on the subject yet." It's okay to say, "I don't really have a response for that particular point."

But it's not okay to shove your uninformed opinion in everyone's face and then act like a nutsack when you're challenged.

It's sometimes still jarring when stupid arguments flare up on one of my profiles--it is, after all, my tiny little corner of the Internet. I don't know that we, as a society, have stopped collectively scoffing at the idea that the pointless, asinine diversions of social media are now very culturally important. But we probably should stop with the scoffing, and start taking it seriously. It's platform to essentially extend your "self" into an accessible, massive digital annex. Shit, the Internet has forced us to redefine our concept of reality.

I suspect, without having been there, that there have always been people who are impervious to facts and reasoning. With the advent of the Internet, these people are all up in my shit all the time. These people are probably going to be around for a long time. Reasoning with people who are impervious to reason is, well--you get it. But every little bit counts.

And so, hypothetical "you" that I've been inconsistently addressing throughout this post--you're entitled to your opinion, but you're also entitled to use Google or learn the basics of logic and rhetoric before you take to the Intertubes with a damned megaphone. Which means when you do this without expecting any ramifications, I'm entitled to make you look like an asshole in front of all your friends.

GO BACK TO MEXICOOOOO! SOOOOCIALISM! UFOOOOOOS!
(photo by Mindaugas Danys)