• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

Politics matters

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
7,773
I agree. But extremists misusing free speech to offend for the sake of it doesn't help that argument
The Moslems are the 'extremists'. Rioting, burning flags, chanting 'death to the West', 'Allah Akbur' over a bloody picture. And those are just the 'moderates'.

Come on, take your head out of the sand.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
34,638
What matter the sacrifices? The tragedies?
I agree that some sacrifices are too high a price to pay.
It's quite possible that several or even all the CH staff murdered that day would have thought so if they'd actually been given the choice.

But since they're dead, I think the least we owe them is to admit that we're just too afraid to speak up in their defence, instead of hiding behind a pretence that it's about being nicer people than the murder victims.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
34,638
I agree. But extremists misusing free speech to offend for the sake of it doesn't help that argument
Which "extremists" are you talking about?

CH took the view that freedom of speech is non existent if one can only say consensual things that annoy nobody, and that this right needs to be "road tested" regularly to ensure that it's still true.

The reality of course is, as Zineb El Rhazoui said several years before the CH attack, that it's perfectly okay to offend, say, Christians, just for the sake of it, but not okay to offend Muslims.

IOW your suggestion is not a general "let's not offend people", just "let's not offend people who are likely to be violent". Unless you think the Life of Brian and Father Ted were also made by extremists?
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,358
Which "extremists" are you talking about?

CH took the view that freedom of speech is non existent if one can only say consensual things that annoy nobody, and that this right needs to be "road tested" regularly to ensure that it's still true.

The reality of course is, as Zineb El Rhazoui said several years before the CH attack, that it's perfectly okay to offend, say, Christians, just for the sake of it, but not okay to offend Muslims.

IOW your suggestion is not a general "let's not offend people", just "let's not offend people who are likely to be violent". Unless you think the Life of Brian and Father Ted were also made by extremists?
I mean politics matters.

He was inspired by CH's stance on free speech so much he waded in with islamophobic bile.

Its a balance the press need to be mindful of.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,806
I agree that some sacrifices are too high a price to pay.
It's quite possible that several or even all the CH staff murdered that day would have thought so if they'd actually been given the choice.

But since they're dead, I think the least we owe them is to admit that we're just too afraid to speak up in their defence, instead of hiding behind a pretence that it's about being nicer people than the murder victims.
I had more in mind the rising far right looking for an excuse to escalate things. Prompted by the poster who wanted to turn Charlie Hebdo's expression to the most hurtful he could personally conceive. With an eye to how these things tend to take on a life of their own.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
34,638
I had more in mind the rising far right looking for an excuse to escalate things. Prompted by the poster who wanted to turn Charlie Hebdo's expression to the most hurtful he could personally conceive. With an eye to how these things tend to take on a life of their own.
Your post was addressed to me though. If it was actually a reply to a different post by someone else you should probably make that clear.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
34,638
I mean politics matters.

He was inspired by CH's stance on free speech so much he waded in with islamophobic bile.

Its a balance the press need to be mindful of.
Which seems like an argument that is not a million miles from the one that's been ridiculed on here many times, namely the claim that someone would like to support marriage equality, or repeal of the 8th or whatever, but can't because of how nasty some of their supporters are being.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,806
Your post was addressed to me though. If it was actually a reply to a different post by someone else you should probably make that clear.
If someone alludes to sacrifices and tragedies it would have seemed intuitive to me in the context that they would think of sacrifices and tragedies beyond the initial gunning down of the office. To add to that it was clear I said "... prompted by the poster who wanted to turn Charlie Hebdo's expression..." only to give a helping hand towards that intuition. For you to then turn aroubd and say stuff like "if it was actually a reply to a different post..." is mental. Is it a debating tactic or something? F%ck me. Apart from being dishonest and snide. It so obviously wasn't a reply to the other poster. Well look I'll leave you to your junior debating hall bullshit then, if that's your level.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,974
I tend to be critical of Muslims and their impact on Europe.

But I think publishing Mohammed cartoons is needlessly provocative. We know some of them go absolutely crazy if they think their religion is being disrespected.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
34,638
If someone alludes to sacrifices and tragedies it would have seemed intuitive to me in the context that they would think of sacrifices and tragedies beyond the initial gunning down of the office.
Which is how I initially understood your comment. That the principles I referred to might not be enough to warrant someone dying. And I agreed - hence my remark that that wish not to become a sacrifice for one's beliefs might well be true right from the very start. They were an example of my agreement with that point.

But that doesn't negate the fact that if we do decide that the principle of free speech is not worth risking lives for, then we shoudl at least be ho,est about why we're not publishing the cartoons.

Instead of which there seems to be a nasty tendency to blame the victims for being reckless, or just a bit unpleasant.
To add to that it was clear I said "... prompted by the poster who wanted to turn Charlie Hebdo's expression..." only to give a helping hand towards that intuition. For you to then turn aroubd and say stuff like "if it was actually a reply to a different post..." is mental. Is it a debating tactic or something? F%ck me. Apart from being dishonest and snide. It so obviously wasn't a reply to the other poster. Well look I'll leave you to your junior debating hall bullshit then, if that's your level.
I think you've mixed up your replies then. I was having a discussion with Buchaill Dana, who is not a poster looking to "turn CH's expression" etc, nor part of the "rising far right". You then joined in apparently disagreeing with my point. How was I supposed to know you were actually discussing an earlier conversation with a different poster?
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
13,295
Twitter
Deiscirt
I tend to be critical of Muslims and their impact on Europe.

But I think publishing Mohammed cartoons is needlessly provocative. We know some of them go absolutely crazy if they think their religion is being disrespected.
No. No. No and and thousand times No again. It is critically imperative that devout Muslims understand that enjoying the bounties of the West means saying goodbye to cherished notions of applying regressive ideas to others is completely beyond the pale.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
13,295
Twitter
Deiscirt
There are so many arguments for standing behind Charlie Hebdo on this.

Then the likes of you come along and give people a reason for seriously reconsidering.
There is literally no good reason under the sun to not stand behind Hebdo's solo charge in defence of Free Speech.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
13,295
Twitter
Deiscirt
I mean politics matters.

He was inspired by CH's stance on free speech so much he waded in with islamophobic bile.

Its a balance the press need to be mindful of.
This just a marker really that you're responding to an event where free-thinking journalists were slaughtered like animals for expressing their opinion by talking about "islamophobic bile" and not the fact that two people walked into an office where journalists were discussing a publication and were shot to death for doing so.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
9,785
I tend to be critical of Muslims and their impact on Europe.

But I think publishing Mohammed cartoons is needlessly provocative. We know some of them go absolutely crazy if they think their religion is being disrespected.
The people who carried out the slaughter were dedicated Islamist supremacists throughout the previous decade. They had dispatched fighters to Iraq and later trained with al-Qaeda. They didn't just wake up one morning and choke on a croissant when they saw the latest Charlie Hebdo.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
34,638
This is a anti-Semitic trope and is not allowed under free speech.

This is free speech and no way is it Islamophobic.
The irony of your comparison on this particular thread appears to escape you.

The first portrays a completely untrue "typical" Jew - any Jew.

The second illustrates a perceived issue with a specific person, who created a specific religion, which led to the murder of unarmed civilians in Paris.

It doesn't protray "all" Muslims, though. It shows one Muslim. The one in whose name these atrocities were committed.
 

Levellers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
14,796
The irony of your comparison on this particular thread appears to escape you.

The first portrays a completely untrue "typical" Jew - any Jew.

The second illustrates a perceived issue with a specific person, who created a specific religion, which led to the murder of unarmed civilians in Paris.

It doesn't protray "all" Muslims, though. It shows one Muslim. The one in whose name these atrocities were committed.
And you think no one was murdered in the name of the Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Sikh gods?
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,679
There is free speech and there is infantile bigotry. You genuinely don't understand that one of the reasons the press think twice is they don't want to give support to your shitebagerry
No they are afraid of being killed and they know the likes of you won't stick up for free speech because you are too "woke". Leftists are part of the problem.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom