The Lost Art of Heckling

[Reauland]

After giving this a lot of thought, I have decided that this would be an acceptable way to spend some tax dollars:

Let's appoint our most venomously sarcastic comedian to the newly-created government post of Official Al Qaeda Heckler.

I mean, come on! We have Poets Laureate to inspire us; what's so far-fetched about making it someone's job to ridicule a bunch of close-minded, foaming-at-the-mouth extremists? (Notice my careful avoidance of the word "terrorist." We'll get back to that.)

To cite two recent examples, here's what I can come up with:

"Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attempted airplane bombing on Christmas Day."

Awesome! Thanks, Al. It's rare these days that we find anyone actually willing to take credit for FAILURE!

"Al Qaeda claims that they were behind the recent schoolhouse bombing in Pakistan"

Impressive. It takes a big, brave man to blow up a bunch of schoolkids. What's next? Gonna push some paraplegics down some stairs? Blow up some animal shelters, maybe? What's wrong? You guys couldn't find any kittens to punch?

And I'm not even a professional!

Now true, I'm making light of some serious and terrible things here, but my aim is simply this:

I want the governments of the world to acknowledge these guys. I want a LOUD VOICE mocking their views and calling them out for the bunch of ignorant, benighted fools that they really are. Open your eyes, you jackasses. You're willing to die for a man that's been willing to die for NO ONE. Bin Laden is just the latest in a long, sad history of power-hungry, mean little hypocrites perfectly willing to clothe their rhetoric in the trappings of religion, paying lip service to beliefs that, in their heart of hearts, they don't even believe apply to them.

And another thing, when are we gonna stop calling them terrorists? Terrorism is just a war tactic that, along with guerilla warfare, is the go-to plan of attack when you find yourself out-manned and out-gunned. We should start addressing why they're out-manned and out-gunned, namely due to the fact that they're clinging to a belief system that most of the world began outgrowing around the time of the Renaissance. Let's start calling them what they really are: Religious Extremists. Granted, "The War on Religious Extremism" doesn't have quite the same visceral impact as "The War on Terror," but it is a cause without ambiguity; a cause I can really throw my back into. In short, if you're such a zealot that you believe others should die for not sharing your point of view, that you're in the minority because the rest of the world is populated with sin-ridden, hell-bound infidels that your holy man said it was your sacred charge to kill, that your backwards, outmoded concepts are mandated by a god who endorses the killing of children for the unspeakable offense of wanting to learn, then it's time for you to go.

The thing I find most intolerable is intolerance.

 

[Raesvelg]

Once upon a time, Man lived in the Age of Reason. Then Man lived in the Age of Enlightenment...

Today, we live in the Age of Sensitivity.

 

[Reauland]

I couldn't agree more, Raes.

I don't wanna sound too high-fallutin here, but here in our semi-sane think tank, what do you think it'll take to change that?

I'm just audacious enough to believe that a bunch of folks chattin on the net can change the world

 

[Raesvelg]

Honesty.

That's about it. You don't have to go out of your way to be an insensitive prick. You just have to tell people the truth, rather than sugar-coat it in the hopes of not offending them or someone else.

Of course, there are times when being an insensitive prick is definitely the way to go in my opinion, but I can be a bit of an prick when the mood strikes me.

In fact, that brings to mind something I feel is more or less relevant to this topic of discussion...

 

[Reauland]

Gawd, I loved that movie. Rarely have I seen so much truth couched in so much hilarity.

Oh! While I'm thinkin of it, I'm gonna toss a bone to anyone out there with a flair for video production:

JIHAD: IMPOSSIBLE
(these underpants will self-destruct in 10 . . . 9. . . . 8 . . .)

If you can't strike gold with that, just quit

 

[Grandphoenix]

a bunch of close-minded, foaming-at-the-mouth extremists?

I'm sorry were you talking about the rest of the world or just the majority of Americans?

 

[lvcgangsta]

I'm sorry were you talking about the rest of the world or just the majority of Americans?

I honestly thought that was part of the joke when I first read it. Wasn't until the "Extremist vs. Terrorist" paragraph that I realized I read it wrong. Overseas, we have people blowing themselves up in the name of whatever politically-driven religious nut happens to speak the loudest. At home we have politically-driven, hypocritically-religious nuts blowing up their egos in the quest to yell and scream louder than the rest. And who says the world isn't "fair and balanced"?

 

[Strid]

I'd vote Jim Norton for this position. Hell, I'd vote for him to be President.

 

[Reauland]

I'm sorry were you talking about the rest of the world or just the majority of Americans?

Name the last Lutheran you heard of strapping on a bomb and taking out the neighborhood Methodist church for the heresies of their faith.

I dare you.

On the other hand, post a depiction of the Prophet Muhammed in a prominent place and enjoy your quiet little time-out with Salman Rushdie and some recent cartoonists in Denmark.

Again, I dare you.

Truth be told, though, I only point this out as the most glaring example of precisely the kind of behavior that hamstrings mankind's progress, rather than working together despite our differences toward a better world. Does that sound too Pollyanna of me? If it does, then maybe we all oughtta just sit back and shake our heads at the lunacy of it all while the radicals keep stoking the engine on that express train straight to hell.

 

[bigbroon]

It got a giggle out of me, a rather large one too. You speak the truth, but unfortunately, that doesn't go for much in today's world. I love the idea of heckling extremists, though. It's something I'd probably pay quite a lot to see.

 

[Synelia]

I want the governments of the world to acknowledge these guys. I want a LOUD VOICE mocking their views and calling them out for the bunch of ignorant, benighted fools that they really are. Open your eyes, you jackasses. You're willing to die for a man that's been willing to die for NO ONE.

The problem here is not that governments can't do it... its more like they'd be cited as hypocrites for saying it.
Afterall.... even the soldiers we send out, are technically dying for a man/government not willing to send themselves to the front lines

We should start addressing why they're out-manned and out-gunned, namely due to the fact that they're clinging to a belief system that most of the world began outgrowing around the time of the Renaissance. Let's start calling them what they really are: Religious Extremists. Granted, "The War on Religious Extremism" doesn't have quite the same visceral impact as "The War on Terror," but it is a cause without ambiguity; a cause I can really throw my back into.

But you forget North Korea. They aren't "religious extremist"... so they needed SOMETHING to tag onto them to gain world sympathy. And while you're talking about religious extremist... do you realize how much of a clamp down we'd have to do within our own borders? Remember Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Unibomber? Calling it a war on religious extremism would open a whole different can of worms.... not to mention you then tread into the whole.... religious descrimination/freedom of choice... argument.
Arguably... had we not supplied them with their ammunition, AND made some of these leaders so popular in times past, AND left well enough alone when the British were removed from their oil refinery in Iran, we probably wouldn't even be HAVING this conversation.

 

[Grandphoenix]

There's "extremist" on both sides it's just the victor who will decide who the "heroes" are.

Personally, I find opposing viewpoints to be a better solution as both pro's and con's are identified, instead of let's just team up and stop the radicals and most likely create a more worse evil in our neo-utilitarian society of yonder.

 

[Reauland]

You're right. Limiting our scope to religious extremists is too restrictive. Simple extremism might be more in line with what we really should be warring against.

Your points are well-taken; however, by way of rebuttal, permit me to to suggest that the greatest disparity lies in education and the availability of knowledge. Using the U.S. military as the example with which I am most familiar, you can talk to a cross-section of volunteers for the armed services and come away with a good representation of the viewpoints commonly held in this country. Regardless of their training, the U.S. military is very much like the country itself - fiercely individualistic, holding their own opinions on the wisdom of the decisions made by their government, religious beliefs ranging from fundamentalist to atheist. By the standards of the world, they're reasonably well-educated, and as well-informed as they choose to be owing to the freedom of knowledge that any free, affluent society enjoys via the internet. Contrast this with your average Talib and tell me there aren't some pretty glaring differences. While both the U.S. soldier and the Talib are volunteers, I'd be so bold as to say that only one of them entered into service based on anything remotely resembling an informed choice.

As far as North Korea goes, do you really think that Kim Jong Il needed help demonizing himself? After all, this is the man who brought us that old Christmas classic The Stunted Generation. It's all in how you define "religion." really. Through the legacy of the propaganda machine of his father, Kim has made himself an object of worship. For those of you who haven't seen National Geographic's excellent special "Inside North Korea", I highly recommend it. Watch it and ask yourself how hard it is to drum up support against a monster. That bastard lets foreign doctors in to clean up his messes, then has the gall to credit himself with having provided this "miracle" for his people.

And yes, I'm well aware of the extremism within our own borders. The examples you cited are all spot-on. And yeah, I'd have no absolutely no problem with reining in our own wack-jobs. Here's the easy-to-follow rule:

Feel free to believe whatever gets you through the day, but act on those beliefs, infringe on someone else's rights, at your peril.

In other words, think abortion is wrong? Feel free to voice your opinion, protest, vote for political candidates that share your point of view, but the instant you bomb a clinic, you've crossed the line.

Think you're a god (Koresh)? Well you're free to believe whatever you want, but act as if the law of the land holds no sway over your predilection for having sex with young girls on your isolated compound, then brace for the teargas.​

Sound familiar? It should, because that's the way any civilized society functions. It's not, however the sort of society you're liable to find in any of the world's "hot spots." Fact of the matter is we do place a hard cap on just how crazy you can be. It's just that other areas of the planet don't, and there's always someone to defend the poor, beleaguered governments of these places, saying how unstable they are. Well, forgive me for saying so, but how unstable does a government have to be before it stops being worthy of the name? In Somalia, the "government" controls two areas - the capital and the airport. Visiting dignitaries are escorted between the two by armed column. To my mind. when you can't even control your own population and warlords rule what are effectively city-states, then you're no longer the government. You dropped the ball. Now step aside and let someone else establish some kind of order before the craziness starts to seep out to other places.

Sometimes I think it's time for a new imperialism, call it an "Enlightened Imperialism" if you will, something along the lines of what the Romans did once upon a time; however, instead of making people "subjects" with a chance of citizenship, educate them and make them citizens outright, instilled with the simple understanding that they're free to believe whatever they choose, and so is the next guy.

 

[Hexx]

I think the problem with "Elightened Imperialism" is that people often tend to reject any foreign ideas that other nations attempt to impose on them. Think of it this way, if some other country tried to do the same to the USA, would any of you sit still and let it happen? I sure as hell wouldnt. I'd open the gun safe and help defend the God given rights the Constitution affords us. I'll be damned if someone tries to take any of my rights away for the sake of "enlightenment."

That's the way we would be viewed Reuland. Hell, it's happening right now with all the insurgent fighting back in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not that I'm saying they're right or anything, but we are of opposing views. To us, it's barbaric that they treat their cattle better than they treat their women, but to them that's normal life =/

 

[Reauland]

Yeah, the logical part of my brain knows you're right, but the emotional part keeps insisting that something's gotta give, even if it's bringing all the troops home and telling the rest of the world to go hang. We can't win for losing, and I'll be honest when I say that I don't think people who are too afraid, too ignorant, too deluded, or maybe just too damned lazy to affect change on their own are worth one drop of American blood.

I know that something needs to change, because if things continue down the road we're traveling now, we're gonna be an endangered species by the turn of the next century, and I'm not talking about U.S. citizens, either.

If by some quirk of fate, had nukes existed at the time of the Crusades. do you think either side would have hesitated to use them? Well we may be too "civilized" to use them now, but my gut tells me that there are others out there who, if such power came into their hands, wouldn't bat an eye.

 

[Hexx]

Oh I totally agree with you on that. Nothing like the threat of mass death and chaos to bring people in line (Hiroshima and Nagasaki say hello!). Thing is, people are already indoctrinated heavily in what they believe in (be they US citizens or Muslim extremists) that each will defend those ideals to the death on most occasions. Trying to change their way of thinking is like trying to get a dog to behave like a cat or vice-versa. It's an unwinnable war because neither side will really give in.

 

[Tristam Green]

Oh I totally agree with you on that. Nothing like the threat of mass death and chaos to bring people in line (Hiroshima and Nagasaki say hello!). Thing is, people are already indoctrinated heavily in what they believe in (be they US citizens or Muslim extremists) that each will defend those ideals to the death on most occasions. Trying to change their way of thinking is like trying to get a dog to behave like a cat or vice-versa. It's an unwinnable war because neither side will really give in.

Want to bet? The side with zero people at the end loses.

 

[Hexx]

Want to bet? The side with zero people at the end loses.

That would technically be genocide TG, which would make us look worse than just mere imperialists. What I take from Reuland's posts is he would prefer for the USA to take over and "enlighten" these people (whether they be Muslim or something else) to maybe prevent or ultimately get rid of religious "extremism". I'm goin out on a limb here, so I might be wrong.........


Edit: Ok maybe "genocide" isnt the right word, since not all Muslim's are of the same ethnicity, help me out here, I think there's a word for it..........

 

[Reauland]

Want to bet? The side with zero people at the end loses.

Tristam? That's precisely what I'm gettin at.

And to expand on that sentiment even more, let me say that while there are people out there who will be quick to say that you can't kill ideas(and I salute them for it), you can make people question the validity of an idea. If you're always in the minority, if your "team" is always the side that has to resort to the last-resort tactic that terrorism really is, if your ideals never see a groundswell of support where massive numbers of people stop turning a blind eye and take up arms in the name of your cause, then maybe your cause is worse than lost. Maybe it's a bad cause. Maybe it's, dare I say, evil.

As an American, I really do believe that all people are equal, that all people are born into this world equally deserving of a fair shake. At the same time, I believe that no matter what situation you find yourself in, it's ultimately your responsibility to change it if it's not to your liking. I know that those ideals aren't universal to people around the world, but I yearn for them to be so. I think that the lack of these views in other cultures is a HUGE part of the problem, that the absence of each individual's internalized sense of worth is the wellspring of tyranny. By way of example, does anyone believe that a guy like Kim Jong Il could hold sway over millions of North Koreans if he hadn't sold them the lie that he's somehow better than them, that all their problems are to be laid at the feet of the demon West? If the idea were to ever spread that that glorified conman was robbing them of their freedom, starving their children, and perpetually keeping them shoveled neck-deep in bullshit, he'd be gone. Period.

We need to stop ignoring what lunatics and charlatans like this guy say, and start ridiculing it. Officially. What I find interesting is that comedians have been a political voice at least as far back as ancient Greece, yet satire and sarcasm are seldom employed in international diplomacy. No, instead we carefully choose our words so as to not hurt anyone's little feelings.Sure, we'll call them evil, we'll call them murderers, but we won't call them nuts. Words like "evil" and "murderer" are, in my opinion, easier to shrug off because they have never made whole populations around the world break out in laughter.Nobody likes being laughed at - no one - and generally, the bigger the ego, the harder such laughter is to ignore. Newsflash: assholes like Kim and Bin Laden deserve to have their feelings hurt. Ever notice that people get angry at being the butt of a joke? There's a reason for it. Comedy is an attack, at its worst it's an infantile attack on someone's appearance or personality. At its best, it's an attack on someone's beliefs, and once again, if your belief is that your god told you you're better than other people, your beliefs need attacking, If that angers their silent supporters into action, more's the better. At least then we'd know where they stand . . . until they fall, at least.

 

[Tristam Green]

That would technically be genocide TG, which would make us look worse than just mere imperialists. What I take from Reuland's posts is he would prefer for the USA to take over and "enlighten" these people (whether they be Muslim or something else) to maybe prevent or ultimately get rid of religious "extremism". I'm goin out on a limb here, so I might be wrong.........


Edit: Ok maybe "genocide" isnt the right word, since not all Muslim's are of the same ethnicity, help me out here, I think there's a word for it..........

Genocide is a systemic eradication of an entire people. Generally-speaking, it's an inflated massacre. Massacre is against an effectively unarmed or vastly (technologically/militarily) inferior group of people.

A battle is won when either a) one or more opposing bodies flees or surrenders, or b) when one side has no remaining combatants.

Case-in-point: Japan surrendered only when they felt they were faced with eradication.


^-- if anyone thinks I am condoning use of atomic weaponry against any combatant, you've missed the point and are full of shit.