Changed w/o discussion: Enemy Mine

The image from Enemy Mine was removed, and the troper was PM'ed. The only reason for the unilateral removal was "offensive". For the record, this◊ was the previous image.

Opening. Unless someone wants to make a case that the old one is offensive, I'd say put it back.

For the record: the thread that chose the SATW image

on restoring the previous image. I would vote that way even if somebody argued toward its "offensiveness" (there are other relatively "offensive" images on the site, but they — too — shouldn't be cut simply for being offensive).

Restore.

For whom is it offensive, and why?

To the person who unilaterally removed it. They did not explain why they thought it was offensive.

I can see how it could be potentially offensive to a hardline Muslim, as it's parodying the "no depictions of Muhammed" stricture, but it was still an improper pull. I've reverted it...the question now is, do we want to try to find something else or just close up?

I don't see a reason to go looking for something else. It worked well at illustrating the trope, and it doesn't actually contain a depiction of Mohammed.

I don't have a problem with it.

I am offended, because the image of the two guys fighting crosses the 180 degree line.

It does contain what looks to be a reproduction of the infamous Danish cartoon that sparked some riots and death threats in 2006 for insultingly depicting Muhummad as a terrorist (https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/danish-cartoon-controversy-- no links to the cartoon itself but GIS will confirm for those curious). I'm not personally offended, but I'm also not Muslim. Any Muslim tropers willing to give us their thoughts?

I'd vote for looking for a new image if one suggests itself.

Post not found on your link

a mild Keep Until Better Image Suggested on current. I think it skirts dangerously close to The Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement when you're dealing with something that led to hundreds of people dying when some of the protests degenerated. The undercurrent of "Ah! They both were offended! And then people died!"

Plus, ya know, gross oversimplification of real world issues.

It's illustrative, but really in poor taste.

edited 21st Apr '17 7:45:48 PM by Ghilz

Does adding the last panel make it better or worse?

Gah. That went all fuzzy. Pooh.

I don't think it's the fact that it's reminiscent of a real-life tragedy that makes it seem offensive, it's the fact that it actually seems to have an image of the prophet Muhammed on that sheet of paper. Which, you know, is the big problem that they put aside their differences for.

Not seeing anything wrong. It's a keep.

I prefer the two-frame version.

edited 22nd Apr '17 4:24:31 AM by rodneyAnonymous

While I think the three-frame version is funnier, I think the two-frame version does a good enough job of illustrating the "conflict to cooperation" part. So I also prefer the two-frame version.

Same here.

I'd go with the two panel version.

Two panels.

While I wouldn't want to make it a hard and fast rule not to use images about the Muhammad cartoon controversy, I'm not sure there's any need of it in this case. Sonic Issue #125 provides a better option anyway.

Here's the page it's from,◊ in case anyone else has a better panel arrangement in mind.

EDIT: Irrelevant sidenote removed.

edited 8th May '17 8:43:47 PM by neoYTPism

I think that I like that better than the SATW one. It's wordier, but not to the point that it's a problem, for me.

This is the kind of trope for which the words and visuals are both important. It's hard to demonstrate the trope without words, hence going for either comics examples or webcomics examples.

(I suppose one could go for subtitled examples from other media, but it'd be harder to prove the subtitles weren't just edited in. Also, comics are made for consumption in still-image instead of animated form, so there's that.)

edited 6th May '17 1:42:54 PM by neoYTPism

I can live with that.

EDIT: Re-clocked.

edited 6th May '17 1:53:09 PM by Willbyr