There’s a screed about this, that rattles around on the internet though gone from its original place, under the title of “The World’s Most Toxic Value System.” He mentions that some call it “shame culture”, but for clarity he picks “thar“, “blood vengeance” in Arabic. A quote:
The thar mentality can be said to include these features. They vary in degree from person to person and place to place but if we find all or most of them in a society we can justly apply the label thar.
* Extreme importance of personal status and sensitivity to insult
* Acceptance of personal revenge including retaliatory killing
* Obsessive male dominance
* Paranoia over female sexual infidelity
* Primacy of family rights over individual rights
Nothing better illustrates the thar mentality better than the fury directed by Islamic militants against Danish and Norwegian cartoons of Mohammed. Sacrilegious art in other cultures can offend and get people angry but the lunatic response of radical Islamists is in a class by itself.
Nothing in it about a “guilt culture”, more like a gradient of how bad the thar thing gets. Honestly, while the Republican thing in the US has some parallels and is certainly toxic, this doesn’t seem to fit all that well.
.. And I should add, thar isn’t Islam. There’s a lot of overlap, but it’s more about Balkans & Middle East, and whatever religions prevail there makes little difference. He throws Africa in there without much attention to detail. Japan and Korea are cited along with Northern Europe as the less toxic part of the world, and with an interesting observation that both sides of the world there had a knightly culture in their middle age.
The way I’ve heard this distinction is, it’s between ‘dignity culture’ and ‘honor culture’. In dignity culture, everyone is entitled to respect; and in honor culture, respect must be earned. Dignity cultures require trusted authorities to enforce norms; in honor cultures, one must enforce those norms oneself.
The paradox of dignity culture is that egalitarianism requires meritocracy; it professes disbelief in superior persons or positions, but it requires superior persons in its superior positions. The paradox of honor culture is that top honor has no honor; the culture demands respect that it does not earn.
May be I am getting paranoid. I zoomed over the fourth pannel because Mo’s chest seemed to bear an arabic tatoo.
Sometimes chest hair is just chest hair.
Interesting discussion. I have always thought it strange that a supposed all powerful god could not defend itself. So it isn’t about defense, it’s about societal perceptions. Thanks.
It looks to me like there are a variety of interpretations on “dignity culture.” The version I’m looking at is more about inherent self estimation, not seeing anything about recognition from others. An insult doesn’t need to be avenged, because your honor wasn’t something you ever really sweated over.
It’s egalitarian, but that’s a simple word for a pretty complex concept. An egalitarian society gives everyone the same breaks, but generally doesn’t expect the same outcomes. When I get into that, I always end up pointed toward a Rawls formula about the system that benefits the least advantaged most, and then I’m kind of stumped for a clear picture of what he was talking about.
One interesting difference is victimhood. In honor culture, victims are losers who have low status and no claim on anyone; in dignity culture, victimization calls for redress. I think Mo was fairly careful not to come off as a victim, but Jesus … whoa.
It has been argued that victimhood culture is a new, third culture, sharing some commonalities with honor culture and dignity culture but distinct from both. In an honor culture any offense, however slight and unintentional, is a threat to your honor, and you are expected to defend your honor with your own hands. In a dignity culture if there is a serious offense you can appeal the the authorities, but you are expected to treat minor offenses as beneath you and brush them off. Victimhood culture shares with honor culture the hypersensitivity to minor offense, but instead of being expected to deal with offenses yourself you are encouraged to shamelessly whinge about them, and demand that others — the college administration, a Twitter mob — come to your defense. Basically the worst of both worlds.
I don’t think I buy it as a significant difference. The threshold between brushing one offense off and complaining to the authorities about another, is going to vary widely between individuals. Maybe we have a lot more thin skinned individuals these days, but the logic is the same.
This is assuming that the second alternative is somewhat misstated. A serious offense must go to the authorities, because society requires justice. It isn’t just an avenue that’s open to you if it would make you feel better. That’s a reasonable restatement, because (I think) it’s true in practically every actual society that we’d like to assign to the “dignity” column. If you buy this, then I think what you’re talking about is really, in part, a tiresomely colossal and distorted conception of justice.
The animated eye-blinks are a cute idea, but they detract from the comic, and really aren’t necessary. I would not be sorry at all to see them disappear again.
Until now, I never noticed any blink. Apparently I am faster to appreciate the comic than the blink to happen. Now I have seen it happen after a long wait and I am not impressed. It’s unnecessary. Contrary, postdoggerel, to the pigeon that is immediately sighted.
I would not ask Author to go to unwonted trouble to make the blink, but if he would care to apply for authoristic license in this matter, I feel certain it would be granted.
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
October 30, 2007
So the Republicans in the US are closer to Islam than Christianity! LOL!!! Sad, but true on both of accounts.
There’s a screed about this, that rattles around on the internet though gone from its original place, under the title of “The World’s Most Toxic Value System.” He mentions that some call it “shame culture”, but for clarity he picks “thar“, “blood vengeance” in Arabic. A quote:
Nothing in it about a “guilt culture”, more like a gradient of how bad the thar thing gets. Honestly, while the Republican thing in the US has some parallels and is certainly toxic, this doesn’t seem to fit all that well.
.. And I should add, thar isn’t Islam. There’s a lot of overlap, but it’s more about Balkans & Middle East, and whatever religions prevail there makes little difference. He throws Africa in there without much attention to detail. Japan and Korea are cited along with Northern Europe as the less toxic part of the world, and with an interesting observation that both sides of the world there had a knightly culture in their middle age.
THE BLINKS ARE BACK ! Well done Mr Jones. (Not that many here will notice.)
The way I’ve heard this distinction is, it’s between ‘dignity culture’ and ‘honor culture’. In dignity culture, everyone is entitled to respect; and in honor culture, respect must be earned. Dignity cultures require trusted authorities to enforce norms; in honor cultures, one must enforce those norms oneself.
The paradox of dignity culture is that egalitarianism requires meritocracy; it professes disbelief in superior persons or positions, but it requires superior persons in its superior positions. The paradox of honor culture is that top honor has no honor; the culture demands respect that it does not earn.
May be I am getting paranoid. I zoomed over the fourth pannel because Mo’s chest seemed to bear an arabic tatoo.
Sometimes chest hair is just chest hair.
Interesting discussion. I have always thought it strange that a supposed all powerful god could not defend itself. So it isn’t about defense, it’s about societal perceptions. Thanks.
Mo’s blinking at the end was a little disconcerting and yet at the same time hilarious.
It looks to me like there are a variety of interpretations on “dignity culture.” The version I’m looking at is more about inherent self estimation, not seeing anything about recognition from others. An insult doesn’t need to be avenged, because your honor wasn’t something you ever really sweated over.
It’s egalitarian, but that’s a simple word for a pretty complex concept. An egalitarian society gives everyone the same breaks, but generally doesn’t expect the same outcomes. When I get into that, I always end up pointed toward a Rawls formula about the system that benefits the least advantaged most, and then I’m kind of stumped for a clear picture of what he was talking about.
One interesting difference is victimhood. In honor culture, victims are losers who have low status and no claim on anyone; in dignity culture, victimization calls for redress. I think Mo was fairly careful not to come off as a victim, but Jesus … whoa.
It has been argued that victimhood culture is a new, third culture, sharing some commonalities with honor culture and dignity culture but distinct from both. In an honor culture any offense, however slight and unintentional, is a threat to your honor, and you are expected to defend your honor with your own hands. In a dignity culture if there is a serious offense you can appeal the the authorities, but you are expected to treat minor offenses as beneath you and brush them off. Victimhood culture shares with honor culture the hypersensitivity to minor offense, but instead of being expected to deal with offenses yourself you are encouraged to shamelessly whinge about them, and demand that others — the college administration, a Twitter mob — come to your defense. Basically the worst of both worlds.
I don’t think I buy it as a significant difference. The threshold between brushing one offense off and complaining to the authorities about another, is going to vary widely between individuals. Maybe we have a lot more thin skinned individuals these days, but the logic is the same.
This is assuming that the second alternative is somewhat misstated. A serious offense must go to the authorities, because society requires justice. It isn’t just an avenue that’s open to you if it would make you feel better. That’s a reasonable restatement, because (I think) it’s true in practically every actual society that we’d like to assign to the “dignity” column. If you buy this, then I think what you’re talking about is really, in part, a tiresomely colossal and distorted conception of justice.
Oh no don’t mention skin again, it has caused a lot of friction (or less friction) on here already….hahaha
M27, I’m saying nowt!
The animated eye-blinks are a cute idea, but they detract from the comic, and really aren’t necessary. I would not be sorry at all to see them disappear again.
Atanwat, do you feel the same way about the pigeon?
The blink, not blink dichotomy….fantastic title for a progressive metal cd…
Until now, I never noticed any blink. Apparently I am faster to appreciate the comic than the blink to happen. Now I have seen it happen after a long wait and I am not impressed. It’s unnecessary. Contrary, postdoggerel, to the pigeon that is immediately sighted.
I would not ask Author to go to unwonted trouble to make the blink, but if he would care to apply for authoristic license in this matter, I feel certain it would be granted.
It is the sixth time Mo has blunk since the comic began. The first time was in 2006. https://www.jesusandmo.net/comic/will/