LGBT Club Night Sink The Pink Accused Of Islamophobia Over 'Jihadi Cat' Meme To Promote Parties

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:49 am

First topic message reminder :

The organisers of a popular LGBT club night in east London have been accused of being "tasteless" and "Islamophobic" after using cat memes to promote their parties. Sink The Pink posted a picture of a cat dressed up as a suicide bomber on its Instagram account, with an accompanying caption reading: “Jihad cat is readies… for my virginz!”

LGBT Club Night Sink The Pink Accused Of Islamophobia Over 'Jihadi Cat' Meme To Promote Parties - Page 2 O-JIHADI-CAT-570

LGBT Club Night Sink The Pink Accused Of Islamophobia Over 'Jihadi Cat' Meme To Promote Parties - Page 2 O-JIHADI-CAT-570

Another picture showed a kitten wearing a headdress and said: “I iz prophet meowhammad.” Zing Tsjeng wrote beneath one of the pictures on Instagram: “I've been coming to your nights since they were at BGMWC [Bethnal Green Working Men's Club], but this is just tasteless (and not in a fun, cute way). "Seriously, you’re one of the biggest queer nights in London. You can do better than trashy Islamophobic memes."
Another club-goer Martin Chivers, 29, said he has stopped going to Sink The Pink’s parties after feeling uncomfortable about its use of “problematic stereotypes”.

LGBT Club Night Sink The Pink Accused Of Islamophobia Over 'Jihadi Cat' Meme To Promote Parties - Page 2 O-SINK-THE-PINK-570

LGBT Club Night Sink The Pink Accused Of Islamophobia Over 'Jihadi Cat' Meme To Promote Parties - Page 2 O-SINK-THE-PINK-570

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/01/lgbt-club-night-accused-of-islamophobia-_n_9357878.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

This point really made me laugh?

He told the Evening Standard: “I thought the memes were trying to be deliberately offensive - depicting Mohammed, mocking suicide bombers - by punching down on a marginalised community in the UK.

WTF?????

In every capacity we should mock suicide bombers, that is not being Islamophobic as riddle me this
If Suicide bombers is as claimed not Islamic, then how can mocking suicide bombers be Islamophobic?
By saying that its Islamophobic is defining suicide bombing as Islamic.
As to mocking some schizophrenic, who heard voices in his head who lived 1600 years ago, executed people, endorsed slavery, polygamy, sex slaves, using unwarranted aggression to conquer people and land, rendering those non-Muslim to a secondary status, deserves every sense of mocking as possible. If they cannot see how barbaric he was, then they clearly are brainwashed. Christians have had the piss taken out of their religion for years, its time Muslims learnt that people have a right to take the piss and get on with it. If they are offended by some suicide cat, then they view suicide bombers as fundamentally Islamic, as why should they be offended at that if its meant to be unislamic?

by eddie Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:15 am

No they won't be publishing becasue they're dead but that doesn't mean that the terrorists were right to kill them becasue they didn't like what was printed?
I don't see your point.

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:16 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Okay two points to address:

Firstly - free speech. If these people want to dress up something and take the piss then it's up to them. I defended Charlie Hebdo to have the right to sleek freely and publish what they wanted.

Secondly - animal abuse. I'm not sure dressing a cat up is "abuse" but I certainly wouldn't treat a pet that way, but that's personal preference.

It's also up to people if they want to condemn those idiots as bigots, Islamophobes, morons, and animal abusers.

The people who were killed at Charlie Hebdo won't be publishing what they want now will they?

It is up to you if you want to condemn, but you wrongly label those taking the piss with incorrect claims

The people at charlie hebdo are dead that took the stand

You honour them by standing up for the right of people to take the piss out of beliefs

Again show me the law that says dressing up animals is animal abuse

In your own time

by eddie Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:19 am

I agree with didge on this tbh rags
Except I find dressing up animals distasteful too, but wouldn't call it "abuse"

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:21 am

eddie wrote:I agree with didge on this tbh rags
Except I find dressing up animals distasteful too, but wouldn't call it "abuse"

You agree with Didge that it's OK to advertise a party by using a cat dressed up as an Islamic suicide bomber?

I call it animal abuse, and I call those idiots Islamophobic hate mongerers.

by eddie Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:26 am

It's called free speech and we are all entitled to it.

Would I have taken the decision to dress up an animal?
No I wouldn't.

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:27 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:I agree with didge on this tbh rags
Except I find dressing up animals distasteful too, but wouldn't call it "abuse"

You agree with Didge that it's OK to advertise a party by using a cat dressed up as an Islamic suicide bomber?

I call it animal abuse, and I call those idiots Islamophobic hate mongerers.

Again show the law that stipulates dressing up cats is animal abuse?

So again you equate islamophobia which means you are backing it to be an offence to take the piss out of a historical character and extremist idiots? In other words you back a concept called blasphemy, and thus are revering a character of history that is believed to have married a 6 year old girl and then had sex with here when she was 9 by many Muslims. That also he had many wives, that he gave women sex slaves to his men etc? You are saying its wrong to mock such an idiot? Are you thus equating this is a person that spoke with a deity called Allah and that this Allah actually exists then?

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:28 am

eddie wrote:It's called free speech and we are all entitled to it.

Would I have taken the decision to dress up an animal?
No I wouldn't.

Would you dress up your kid as a suicide bomber, or would that be merely "distasteful"?

I wonder if people would be defending this lot if they weren't gay - if it was the EDL promoting a party, for example.

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:30 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:It's called free speech and we are all entitled to it.

Would I have taken the decision to dress up an animal?
No I wouldn't.

Would you dress up your kid as a suicide bomber, or would that be merely "distasteful"?

I wonder if people would be defending this lot if they weren't gay - if it was the EDL promoting a party, for example.

Would not care who did it, as its not a hate crime.

Again are you elevating Muhammad to being something so special, that he is immune from taking the piss out of?

So you can take the piss out of me and countless others, but you draw the line on some historical character, who endorsed slavery?

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:32 am

It's nothing to do with Mohammed, it's to do with labelling Muslims as suicide bombers, and using animal abuse in order to do so.

by eddie Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:33 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:It's called free speech and we are all entitled to it.

Would I have taken the decision to dress up an animal?
No I wouldn't.

Would you dress up your kid as a suicide bomber, or would that be merely "distasteful"?

I wonder if people would be defending this lot if they weren't gay - if it was the EDL promoting a party, for example.

Rags I don't give a crap about their sexuality! Since when have I been like that?

And no, I wouldn't dress my child up, I've already explained my stance on this about animals. It's tasteless IMO, and slightly warped (especially kids being dressed up) but not abuse.

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:34 am

Raggamuffin wrote:It's nothing to do with Mohammed, it's to do with labelling Muslims as suicide bombers, and using animal abuse in order to do so.

Err again its you labeling Muslims as suicide bombers

I was under the impression from Muslims, that islamic terrorists are not Muslims

They took the piss out of suicide bombers and Muhammad, so its you making an association to Muslims with suicide bombing

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:36 am

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It's nothing to do with Mohammed, it's to do with labelling Muslims as suicide bombers, and using animal abuse in order to do so.

Err again its you labeling Muslims as suicide bombers

I was under the impression from Muslims, that islamic terrorists are not Muslims

They took the piss out of suicide bombers and Muhammad, so its you making an association to Muslims with suicide bombing

No, it's the Pink lot who are doing that. I'm not surprised you're defending them - your bigotry against Muslims isn't a secret on here.

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:39 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Err again its you labeling Muslims as suicide bombers

I was under the impression from Muslims, that islamic terrorists are not Muslims

They took the piss out of suicide bombers and Muhammad, so its you making an association to Muslims with suicide bombing

No, it's the Pink lot who are doing that. I'm not surprised you're defending them - your bigotry against Muslims isn't a secret on here.

I am defending the right to take the piss out of extremists and an idiot from history

You are the one making absurd notions its a hate crime to take the piss out of a historical character and extremists

Thus its you then associating this to Muslims through suicide bombers

Then with have the lame claim of bigotry again

At no point are they taklng the piss out of Muslims, unless you believe suicide bombing is part of Islam. Do you?

Listen love, you are the Christian, not me, that has a belief that all non-believers will suffer eternally

That is bigotry in every aspect of the word.

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:41 am

Next time there are posts on here whining about homophobia, I'm sure most people will just say that mocking or insulting gay people is just free speech - yes?

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:43 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Next time there are posts on here whining about homophobia, I'm sure most people will just say that mocking or insulting gay people is just free speech - yes?

And we are back to sheer ignorance

Homosexuality is something people are born as

People are not born Muslims, even if Muslims claim to be. They learn and either accept that belief

Again it is wrong to insult a homosexual for being homosexual

Its wrong to insult a Muslim, for being a Muslim

Insulting an extremist, is insulting an extremist

You made it insulting Muslims, thus meaning you think suicide bombing is part of Islam

Go figure

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:48 am

I see that Didge hasn't wasted any time dragging Christians into this, and has become offensive again. He will not get any more replies on the grounds that he is being a twat again.

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:50 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I see that Didge hasn't wasted any time dragging Christians into this, and has become offensive again. He will not get any more replies on the grounds that he is being a twat again.

I see have render every point you made utterly obliterated by sound reasoning

More like I just rendered your views immature, poor and wrong

Then have a sulk as its funny you now make the above excuses lol

Silly child

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:02 pm

it IS odd, isnt it, that those who have hysterics at the slightest perceived (in their view) animal abuse (as opposed to REAL abuse that matters) are also the ones who generally feel they can excuse ANY amount of volence against humans

kinda warped if you ask me....

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:04 pm

Some comments from the Standard.

I am actually more offended because they have used a lovely God's creature, Cat, depicting a terrorist. The thought of an innocent cat being harmed in any way is more saddening and heartbreaking.

Animal abuse pure and simple.

Funny how they are the first to moan about prejudice when it's against what they represent - talk about double standards !

I agree with all of those.

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:05 pm

Lord Foul wrote:it IS odd, isnt it, that those who have hysterics at the slightest perceived (in their view) animal abuse (as opposed to REAL abuse that matters) are also the ones who generally feel they can excuse ANY amount of volence against humans

kinda warped if you ask me....

You excuse violence against humans and against animals though.

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:07 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Some comments from the Standard.

I am actually more offended because they have used a lovely God's creature, Cat, depicting a terrorist. The thought of an innocent cat being harmed in any way is more saddening and heartbreaking.

Animal abuse pure and simple.

Funny how they are the first to moan about prejudice when it's against what they represent - talk about double standards !

I agree with all of those.

You see, notice how the comment said terrorist rags, not Muslim

Gods creature? lol

How is it being harmed?

Some people really have not gotten off cuckoo train, have they.

So its again not animal abuse, as again, the animal has not been harmed in any capacity

So again show the law stating that this is animal abuse

The views of a fruit loop do not count

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:07 pm

Lord Foul wrote:it IS odd, isnt it, that those who have hysterics at the slightest perceived (in their view) animal abuse (as opposed to REAL abuse that matters) are also the ones who generally feel they can excuse ANY amount of volence against humans

kinda warped if you ask me....

Bang on the money

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:08 pm

which makes me at least consistant...

not at all "picky"

besides...I see NO difference between humans and animals

some/most need the utmost protection
others need culling LGBT Club Night Sink The Pink Accused Of Islamophobia Over 'Jihadi Cat' Meme To Promote Parties - Page 2 2190311264

LGBT Club Night Sink The Pink Accused Of Islamophobia Over 'Jihadi Cat' Meme To Promote Parties - Page 2 2190311264

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:09 pm

Lord Foul wrote:which makes me at least consistant...

not at all "picky"

besides...I see NO difference between humans and animals

some/most need the utmost protection
others need culling

So you would have no problem with a baby being dressed up as a suicide bomber and mocked on the internet then.

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:11 pm

I se she still does not grasp that it is the suicide bomber being mocked

It seems rags is defending suicide bombers from ridicule

Wow

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:15 pm

further it could be argued that those humans that need culling deserve it MORE than those animals that need culling....

the humans have a choice of whether to be evil or not...

we just cant let religious ideas define what evil is, since its too primitive and based on superstition and illogical patriacrchal ideology

the animals on the other hand have to be culled and controlled becuse of what we have done to the world and to provide the food you shove down your throat

besides you are a massive hypocrit....

You have already in a past post stated that you would ruin the environment (therby ensuring the extiction of multiple species) to satisfy your "needs" LGBT Club Night Sink The Pink Accused Of Islamophobia Over 'Jihadi Cat' Meme To Promote Parties - Page 2 2190311264

now THAT IS "abuse"

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:17 pm

Lord Foul wrote:further it could be argued that those humans that need culling deserve it MORE than those animals that need culling....

the humans have a choice of whether to be evil or not...

we just cant let religious ideas define what evil is, since its too primitive and based on superstition and illogical patriacrchal ideology

the animals on the other hand have to be culled and controlled becuse of what we have done to the world and to provide the food you shove down your throat

besides you are a massive hypocrit....

You have already in a past post stated that you would ruin the environment (therby ensuring the extiction of multiple species) to satisfy your "needs"

now THAT IS "abuse"

I think you're inadvertently agreeing with me. Humans have a choice to be evil or not, so why use an animal to portray evil human beings?

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:20 pm

Its very simple human babies are not equivalent to animal cats. To even equate they are the same is rendering them then to have the same laws. Which means applying the same laws as you would to an infant. Is that what tags is really claiming?

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:20 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:which makes me at least consistant...

not at all "picky"

besides...I see NO difference between humans and animals

some/most need the utmost protection
others need culling

So you would have no problem with a baby being dressed up as a suicide bomber and mocked on the internet then.

the palestinians clearly dont

however there IS a difference in that aspect...dont be deliberately obtuse

the photos of the baby would come back to haunt the adult...

the photos of the cat wont lead to the cat as an individual being subject to idiots mocking it (personally) and, even if they did...much the cat would care...

see this is where you are dumb ragga.....You ascribe the same abilities and psychology to animals as humans

get back to your bambi film... Rolling Eyes

and read the context within which I posted ....

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:further it could be argued that those humans that need culling deserve it MORE than those animals that need culling....

the humans have a choice of whether to be evil or not...

we just cant let religious ideas define what evil is, since its too primitive and based on superstition and illogical patriacrchal ideology

the animals on the other hand have to be culled and controlled becuse of what we have done to the world and to provide the food you shove down your throat

besides you are a massive hypocrit....

You have already in a past post stated that you would ruin the environment (therby ensuring the extiction of multiple species) to satisfy your "needs"

now THAT IS "abuse"

I think you're inadvertently agreeing with me. Humans have a choice to be evil or not, so why use an animal to portray evil human beings?

aside from the physical side of "dressing up" which the cat may or may not worry about, are you trying to tell me that cat give a shit about the symbolism??

oh ffs....

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:24 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you're inadvertently agreeing with me. Humans have a choice to be evil or not, so why use an animal to portray evil human beings?

aside from the physical side of "dressing up" which the cat may or may not worry about, are you trying to tell me that cat give a shit about the symbolism??

oh ffs....

I've already said that cats don't generally like to wear clothes or have pretend bombs strapped to them.

Re your other point, it says more about the cowardly people who would rather use their pet to promote their hatred or mock others than just come out and say it in their own name, using their own face. They don't deserve to have a pet.

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

aside from the physical side of "dressing up" which the cat may or may not worry about, are you trying to tell me that cat give a shit about the symbolism??

oh ffs....

I've already said that cats don't generally like to wear clothes or have pretend bombs strapped to them.

Re your other point, it says more about the cowardly people who would rather use their pet to promote their hatred or mock others than just come out and say it in their own name, using their own face. They don't deserve to have a pet.

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:32 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

and some dont mind....

and I could write "it says more about the cowardly people who would rather use their religion to promote their hatred or mock others than just come out and say it in their own name, using their own face. They don't deserve to have societies tolerance."

Its all a matter of perspective

Those people are saying things in their own name though, so your logic is at fault - like most of the logic on this forum.

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

aside from the physical side of "dressing up" which the cat may or may not worry about, are you trying to tell me that cat give a shit about the symbolism??

oh ffs....

I've already said that cats don't generally like to wear clothes or have pretend bombs strapped to them.

Re your other point, it says more about the cowardly people who would rather use their pet to promote their hatred or mock others than just come out and say it in their own name, using their own face. They don't deserve to have a pet.

and some dont mind.... LGBT Club Night Sink The Pink Accused Of Islamophobia Over 'Jihadi Cat' Meme To Promote Parties - Page 2 2190311264

and I could write "it says more about the cowardly people who would rather use their religion to promote their hatred or mock others than just come out and say it in their own name, using their own face. They don't deserve to have societies tolerance."

Its all a matter of perspective

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:33 pm

Did I reply before you even posted? Laughing

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

and some dont mind....

and I could write "it says more about the cowardly people who would rather use their religion to promote their hatred or mock others than just come out and say it in their own name, using their own face. They don't deserve to have societies tolerance."

Its all a matter of perspective

Those people are saying things in their own name though, so your logic is at fault - like most of the logic on this forum.

not when they are "religious leaders"

besides...its NOT in their own name is it...Its writ large in the manual of practice i.e those holy books....

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:35 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Those people are saying things in their own name though, so your logic is at fault - like most of the logic on this forum.

not when they are "religious leaders"

besides...its NOT in their own name is it...Its writ large in the manual of practice i.e those holy books....

Are they using a cat with a Bible strapped to its back though?

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Did I reply before you even posted?

yeah, you wanna stop doing that , you will be burned at the stake

"suffer not a witch to live " and all that .......

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

not when they are "religious leaders"

besides...its NOT in their own name is it...Its writ large in the manual of practice i.e those holy books....

Are they using a cat with a Bible strapped to its back though?

is that actually relevant???

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:36 pm

and you would whinge about that too so?????

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:37 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are they using a cat with a Bible strapped to its back though?

is that actually relevant???

Well yes, since we're talking about a photo of a cat with a pretendy bomb strapped to it.

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:37 pm

and it would have to be a "pocket edition" too.....

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:37 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and you would whinge about that too so?????

Of course! Pets aren't there to be used in that manner.

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:38 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and it would have to be a "pocket edition" too.....

Not if it was a large cat ...

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:39 pm

tiger???

good luck with that. though if one was to manage it I guess it would prove my point that not all cats object to dressing up......

by Guest Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:and you would whinge about that too so?????

Of course! Pets aren't there to be used in that manner.

Did you ask them if they wanted to be a pet or free?

by Sponsored content