Arguments like this might make more sense if publishing these cartoons had no ill effects--but it only serves to further divide the west and the Muslim world and it offends actual people who you would want to be on your side.

But his whole premise is dumb. So, if there were gangs of people attacking the Westboro Baptist people, I should defend yelling "God Hates ****!" at military funerals because that expression is threatened? That makes no sense.

Did you just compare a satyrical cartoon drawings to KKK sitdowns in black neighborhoods?

One has a history of drawing cartoons, the other has a history of lynching blacks.

And I do think we're short-selling the philosophical pluralism that underpins liberal democracies. Of course we have the right to free speech, which as Douthat points out, is not giving some kind of carte blanche for all deliberate offense-giving as a practical and ethical matter. Part of the social contract we're imbued with here is that we're necessarily trying to operate in environments where people have different interests, convictions and lifestyles. Yeah you can walk around calling black people ******s I guess, or going to your local Scientology church and insult for believing in Xenu, or just absolutely insist your kid should get to have sunscreen at school (ha ha!), but part of a well-functioning society and the political ethos we should maintain involves accommodation of competing interests and values.

I'd reiterate this case in particular and these cartoons in particular are like the absurd end of the slippery slope and I don't think people should stop publishing them and I hesitate to make this particular argument here, but it's easy to see how Douthat's argument quickly turns small-l liberalism into political nihilism, where political society is constructed solely to support yelling in each others faces or whatever. That's not quite how most people imagine a flourishing democracy to operate and it does mean sometimes you put aside your interests or values in favor of someone else's, or allowing them to have their interests and values in a dignified way.

When I wrote "ordinary day to day job", the exception is satirists. But it proves my point: they were only satirising Muhammad because of the last controversy. That in turn creates a controversy of its own, which inspires the next breed of satirists to create more depictions of Muhammad, begetting further controversy, and so forth. If no-one had bothered to depict Muhammad, there wouldn't be any controversy about it, which would remove 99% of the reason for satirists to create the depictions of Muhammad in the first place.

CNN harping on how they have to be professional because of 'their black clothes and masked faces' is really tilting me.

What if you're a Muslim who isn't offended by depictions of Muhammad? Are you then no longer included in this "Muslim world"?

No. I was creating a hypothetical to show how Douthat's very specific claim was misguided. I think I've said a couple of times now people should feel free to publish these specific cartoons.

Yes, but there are still people who are offended.

Hey I'm with you Nichlemn if no one ever drew Muhammad then there would be no controversy. Completely granted. I also agree with you satirists are the main culprit in propagating satire that ends up getting them and future satirists who want killed. Sounds like these satirists are the main culprit (99%) behind propagating ideas that kill satirists and therefor to save satirists we must either kill satirists, jail satirists, or censure satirists.

*grunch

Ban cartoons and guns.

And those are the people we want on our side? Just trying to keep the sides correct.

The more apt Westboro comparison is defending the right of the press to denigrate those yelling "God hates ****."

I think it's important to point out no one is trying to structure a direct comparison to the shootings, but to point out that Douthat's stated principle that offense-making becomes immediately welcomed when someone reacts in a crazy violent way is a weird form of 'political action auto-pilot.' Like, I really hope no one opens fire on those Westboro creeps, but if they do, they're still Westboro creeps to me and should shut the **** up and go home regardless. Like if some vet's parents open fire on those Westboro clowns, I'm not going to go join those Westboro *******s and stand with them the next time. Douthat seems to write explicitly that's exactly what we should do.

It would be nice if the most religiously extreme of us just screamed vile catch phrases.

I don't want to freak you out, but have you ever seen the mayor character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

I'm pretty sure that's just one guy, only the first picture is from the 1920s.

Perhaps explaining it would be a start.

SURE, LETS ALL BECOME MUSLIM AND ADHERE TO SHARIA LAW, SO THE TERRORIST THREAT GOES DOWN

Nope. Just tell them (or more importantly, wannabe 'satirists' who think that drawing the most gratuitously offensive picture of Muhammad possible is the way to fight terror) that what they're doing is just perpetuating a vicious circle. These terrorists aren't rational - they're not going to stop because it seems like their efforts are backfiring, and they're not going to step up their efforts if it seems like they're successful.

Why is killing people who offend your sensibilities about depicting or "insulting" your sacred religious figure "irrational"? Presumably if you do it to stop people from depicting him or "insulting" him and you have people telling others to stop drawing or insulting to avoid violence then it's perfectly rational, it's just not liberal.

Why is killing people who insult or offend you irrational?

I think you're reading his analogy backwards.

Probably. That is the way it makes sense to me.

Muslims might kill u anyway, but if u go posting cartoons mocking them, u prolly gonna die. Fact

Molly Norris is still alive. Changed name and still in hiding but alive.

Can someone translate all the cartoons from post 13?