>They may have decided to preface their article with this message because they feared retaliation by zealous Muslims who would not otherwise expect to see a depiction of Muhammad in the Guardian.
Seems like content to me.
You may not like what was said, but please do not engage in dishonesty.
- The fact that I don't embrace the concept of trigger warnings.
- The fact that I responded in agreement to another comment.
- The fact that I suggested the warning could have been placed in response to a fear of retaliation.
- Me. Just, in general.
- All of the above.
But since none of the downvoters had enough gumption to actually say what they didn't like about my comment, we'll never know. :)
My pet theory for what motivates these squads of downvoters is a mix of laziness and cowardice.
;).
I agree wholeheartedly.
They may have decided to preface their article with this message because they feared retaliation by zealous Muslims who would not otherwise expect to see a depiction of Muhammad in the Guardian.
I don't think it detracts any from the content of the reporting, though.
# On topic #
There are two possible extremes to consider:
1. A world in which any idea or custom is subject to criticism. Nothing is sacred. We can criticize, laugh at, depict, and mock anything that anyone believes. Publicly. Without fear of violence.
2. A world in which NO idea or custom is subject to criticism. Everything is sacred. Do not criticize, laugh at, depict, or mock anything that anyone believes.
My problem with religious extremists is that they, in general, seem to want World #2 for themselves and World #1 for everyone else. I'm more of a "World #1 for everyone" sort of person, and you're free to mock me for that if you'd like.