Was that the course on "Morality and Cosmology: Can we make a case for a just God in a universe that invented Desenex powder" ?
I am NOT Charlie either.
- Thread starter Jiffypop69
- Start date
I don't have a problem with all the Charlie Hebdo solidarity being shown lately. In fact, I think it is a good and necessary reminder that we are a civil society that won't kowtow to the terrorists. But the massively hypocritical leaders trying to wrap that cloak around themselves is fucking galling!
On Sunday, 3.7 million people gathered all over France to mourn the lives of those killed in last week's Charlie Hebdo attack. It was almost a moving collective stand for freedom of expression in the face of terror and fear—except that its most prominent supporters are much greater threats to a free press than terrorism.
http://justice.gawker.com/these-world-leaders-are-a-worse-threat-to-free-press-th-1679032136
I don't condone acts of terrorism, but people have to be smart enough when to say what they want "free speech", and when to zip it. Some people are more sensitive than others, so for anyone to drone on baiting any group that is more prone to retaliating is just asking for it. Chances are good nothing will happen, but considering the types of extremists any satirical media is trying to mock, it gets to a point where it's mathematically very possible over time that a handful of angry people out of thousands and thousands (more like millions) will eventually "get back at you".
I believe it already happened yearas ago as some Danish cartoonist got killed too.
It's really no different than school yard fights. Kids get mad and shout at each other. Typically, one person or group is more likely to yap. Considering all the stuff kids sling at each other, there's a low chance something big will happen. But it gets to a point one person or side will eventually duke it out at recess after getting mocked at too long.
There will be less school yard fights if people don't antagonize each other. And let's face it, it's usually one side that starts to antagonizing first and then it snowballs from there.
It's also similar to dogs. When I was a kid, there were some dogs in the neighbourhood that were super nice. But some dogs in people's yards were very mean... barking at every person walking by (territorial). If you walk past the house, it'll stop barking. Just leave them alone. You're just asking for trouble going up to the gate and pissing it off because if that gate accidentally opens you're toast. The animal has already proven it doesn't want to be messed with, so to try to goof around with the dog from the safety of the other side of the gate is 99.9% safe (for you). But don't ask for pity for that 0.1% of the time the gate swings open.
If you want to have fun and goof around, do it with the friendly dogs who don't mind it.... but actually like the giggles.
Interestingly, if you read Charlie Hebdo's history, this isn't the first time they've mocked Islam and got retaliated. The key difference this time is that the assailants went extreme and shot up everyone.
I believe it already happened yearas ago as some Danish cartoonist got killed too.
It's really no different than school yard fights. Kids get mad and shout at each other. Typically, one person or group is more likely to yap. Considering all the stuff kids sling at each other, there's a low chance something big will happen. But it gets to a point one person or side will eventually duke it out at recess after getting mocked at too long.
There will be less school yard fights if people don't antagonize each other. And let's face it, it's usually one side that starts to antagonizing first and then it snowballs from there.
It's also similar to dogs. When I was a kid, there were some dogs in the neighbourhood that were super nice. But some dogs in people's yards were very mean... barking at every person walking by (territorial). If you walk past the house, it'll stop barking. Just leave them alone. You're just asking for trouble going up to the gate and pissing it off because if that gate accidentally opens you're toast. The animal has already proven it doesn't want to be messed with, so to try to goof around with the dog from the safety of the other side of the gate is 99.9% safe (for you). But don't ask for pity for that 0.1% of the time the gate swings open.
If you want to have fun and goof around, do it with the friendly dogs who don't mind it.... but actually like the giggles.
Interestingly, if you read Charlie Hebdo's history, this isn't the first time they've mocked Islam and got retaliated. The key difference this time is that the assailants went extreme and shot up everyone.
The western media gets latitude to do/print what they want for a number of reasons:
- There is less chance of them being sued
- Their satire/cartoons are often aimed at the masses in which people are less prone to take it personally
- For any person directly mocked (high profile person), there is zero chance they will retaliate unlike some people in other countries which are less stable
- Most western media is isolated away from hotbeds which are more prone to uproars (Africa and Mid East)
- Most people in western countries are typically decently well off, so there isn't that huge pool of poor people who may try to make a stand
- Religions popular with west are not associated with terrorist acts of modern time. I know some people will bring up The Crusades or big events 1,000 years ago, but people care about now, not back then
- Western governments are more stable
Add all these up and you can see why people living in western countries is more accepting of satire, while some people living in certain parts of the world can be more easily ticked off.
I highly doubt the Charlie Hebdo employees would churn out satirical pieces about Mohammed (sp) if they worked in an downtown office building in a city.... in the mid east. But 1,000s of miles away in France, they probably thought it would be safe.
Freedom of speech is all well and good. But as I said before (just like life in general, at work, or shopping at the mall), you got to know when to be comfortable saying stupid things, and when to zip it. Some close friends and family you can say whatever you want and everyone will have a good laugh. But then there's always a pool of people everyone knows where you act more straight laced and proper.
At work, if someone called another person a "fat slob", isn't that freedom of speech? The person may in fact be grossly overweight and have a messy desk too, so it can actually be a factual statement. The person being insulted, HR manager and bosses should turn a blind eye and just say suck it up. It's just words. Freedom of speech after all. However, the retaliation would be the person would get reprimanded. In that case, there is no freedom of speech. And I think most people would agree that person should be talked to.
Considering there seems to be more extremists, terrorists and radicals within the Islam religion, it doesn't make sense to antagonize them especially since the extremists resort to violence. You're just asking for it.
Here's a good example of what to do and not to do. When I was in high school, there was one guy (good guy), people liked. Talk sports, tv shows, dumb jokes etc.... Good guy. But for whatever reason, he hated when people made fun of his name. If you bugged him too much with nicknames or goofing his last name, he'd get red faced and eventually try to fight you. And not a good choice as he was typically stronger than the average guy. Sounds crazy. But that's the way he was. Everyone who knew him could take a few routes of interaction..... keep pissing him off making sex jokes with his last name and hope he doesn't fight you, keep pissing him off and accept the consequences like a punch in the face, keep pissing him off and hope he changes his ways and accepts jokes about his name, and lastly just stop mocking his name and call him by his real name which he preferred.
Everyone seemed to gravitate to just calling him by his normal name. No more red faced uproars. Problem solved.
The limits of freedom of speech are very clearly defined by the law. It is illegal to slander or personally insult someone for obvious reason. It is not illegal to publish satire about matters of public interest and public figures, including the pope or the prophet.
I am charlie....and if you believe in guaranteeing free speech, so are you, whether you have the capacity to understand that or not.
Ffs "je suis Charlie" does not mean you agree with the cartoons or the decision to offend. It is disheartening to see how many cannot grasp that difference.
Ffs "je suis Charlie" does not mean you agree with the cartoons or the decision to offend. It is disheartening to see how many cannot grasp that difference.
The more a society gives special treatment to a select group, be it religious, sexual orientation, etc., just because that group is more violent or sensitive, is NOT the smart way to handle this.
It will only increase said groups demands for more special treatment,...which will fix NOTHING.
Next we are going to be told that calling a specific political leaning,...the looney left,...for example,...will have your house picketed,...:Eek:
FAST
It will only increase said groups demands for more special treatment,...which will fix NOTHING.
Next we are going to be told that calling a specific political leaning,...the looney left,...for example,...will have your house picketed,...:Eek:
FAST
If you follow that sentence with "but" then I am sorry but you do condone terrorism.
We are talking about murdering people you disagree with. If you think someone should be sued for defamation, or that defamation laws should be broadened we would be talking about reprimanding people with small fines or perhaps even a short stint in jail, administered through a free and open court.
We are talking about murdering people who stray into offense. I have offended lots of people in my day
I am Charlie.
The key difference is that whomever you have insulted didn't care enough to get back at you. Depending who you said it to, that person may have joined in and giggled with you if you'r insults were hanging out with the guys and everyone is goofing on each other for fun.
The world is full of people who react hard and fast, except the proportion of them is tiny vs. the 99% crowd who won't do anything. So to antagonize people hoping they don't do anything is stupid because some groups of people seem to react harder and faster than other groups. As I said before, I highly doubt any western media would have the balls to do their satire cartoons in the local paper if their office was in that region of the world where there is seemingly endless riots. But from the safety of France, they probably thought otherwise. The paper already has a history of minor retaliation, so it's not like this came out of nowhere and the assailants randomly chose a business to shoot up.
Act like an ass, get treated like an ass.
It's no different than walking down the street and telling everyone who passes you they are an asshole. Freedom of speech right? I guess so. Technically, it's just words. A one second sound bite that literally disappears into thin air. But don't be surprised if someone yells back and punches you in the face. That's the way the world works.
I have the right to free speech and freedom of expression, but I'm respectful to the beliefs of others, as I demand that they be respectful of mine. So, in that regard, I am NOT Charlie Hebdo, just as I am NOT Lindsey Stone.
Tu es Pat Buchanan ? There is a fountain of right wing hatred and intolerance ..
"“through history, all the great religions have condemned homosexuality and all the great nations have proscribed or punished it."
"Women are simply not endowed with the same measure of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."
Evolution: "Darwin’s examples of natural selection — such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive — have been debunked.... "
Odd choice for the 'go to main man'.
You seem to be hung up on provocation and that is not what the outrage is about. Twelve people - some in the wrong place at the wrong time - were massacred simply because these terrorists wanted to send a strong message of fear to anyone that does not agree with their warped view. What next - you stop your daughters from going to school so they don't get shot ? Either you stand up for your principles or you cower in fear. Je suis Charlie is showing that you have no fear from these pricks. I would like to buy a paper just to spit in the terrorists eye and show that they have failed miserably.
Yes, too many people are cowards in the face of terrorism. On the left it takes the form of appeasement, on the right people give away rights in the name of security. Either is cowardly. "Je suis Charlie" is the only response that stands against tyranny.
I don't agree with Charlie, but then you and I don't agree on much either. We can't abandon to violent oppression people we don't agree with.
With all due respect, I think Occasionally has a pretty good interpretation of the situation - much better than most folks, IMO.
The editors of Charlie Hebdo were very deliberate and provocative in their actions; but were they fully aware of the risks their actions presented to themselves as well as others? To paraphrase Occasionally, if you poke the bear, or tease the dog, or throw rocks at the hornets' nest, don't be surprised if you elicit a reaction that you won't enjoy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...lain-editor-dragged-team-to-their-deaths.html
"Je suis Charlie" is a symbolic gesture; an equally symbolic gesture, and probably a much more appropriate one, could have been to respect the beliefs of the billion or so Muslims who are NOT murderous lunatics and not continuously run material that they find highly offensive. You have the right to free speech, but you also have the choice of not being an idiot and painting a target on your back, as well as on those who happen to be in your neighbourhood.
If you would really like to "spit in the terrorists eye", I've got a few recommendations for you that are concrete, not symbolic:
http://www.forces.ca/en/page/applynow-100, or, even better, because more doorkickers is really only a bandaid;
http://www.terrorismstudies.com/
The editors of Charlie Hedbo were very deliberate and provocative in their actions: and they had every right to be. This is a democracy. We accept that some people will publish things that offend us, and that they will do so deliberately and provocatively.
Seth also previously tried to justify the Taliban with some nonsense that they were just horribly misunderstood and that if we all only learned about "pashtunwali" we would think their support for Al Qaeda was ok. Sorry Seth, it was not ok. And it is not ok to go about murdering people who offend you, even if their actions were deliberate and provocative.
Islamists do not get a pass just because they have a fucked up ideology that espouses violence -- we will not appease them, even if it means fighting for what we believe. I am not a coward. I would rather be a little less secure, than live in a society where people are prevented from saying something that might offend somebody. Lots of people say things that offend me -- I find the Southern Baptists very offensive and their anti-gay tirades absolutely outrageous, but I am not about to go murder them. I find that my blood boils half the time I read one of Heather Mallick's columns in the Toronto Star, but that doesn't mean I think she should be killed. I am outright disgusted by the pro-terrorist nonsense that groggy, gryfin, and nottyboi post over in the politics forum, but I don't believe they should be shot for it. In fact, I found the Charlie Hedbo stuff offensive too -- but I would put the most offensive shit ever on a t-shirt and parade down the street before I give up the freedoms that entitle people to publish it.
If you don't believe in the freedoms that our society is based on then perhaps you can make your home in one of those third world authoritarian shitholes where a life isn't worth a damn and nobody is entitled to speak their mind.
Seth also previously tried to justify the Taliban with some nonsense that they were just horribly misunderstood and that if we all only learned about "pashtunwali" we would think their support for Al Qaeda was ok. Sorry Seth, it was not ok. And it is not ok to go about murdering people who offend you, even if their actions were deliberate and provocative.
Islamists do not get a pass just because they have a fucked up ideology that espouses violence -- we will not appease them, even if it means fighting for what we believe. I am not a coward. I would rather be a little less secure, than live in a society where people are prevented from saying something that might offend somebody. Lots of people say things that offend me -- I find the Southern Baptists very offensive and their anti-gay tirades absolutely outrageous, but I am not about to go murder them. I find that my blood boils half the time I read one of Heather Mallick's columns in the Toronto Star, but that doesn't mean I think she should be killed. I am outright disgusted by the pro-terrorist nonsense that groggy, gryfin, and nottyboi post over in the politics forum, but I don't believe they should be shot for it. In fact, I found the Charlie Hedbo stuff offensive too -- but I would put the most offensive shit ever on a t-shirt and parade down the street before I give up the freedoms that entitle people to publish it.
If you don't believe in the freedoms that our society is based on then perhaps you can make your home in one of those third world authoritarian shitholes where a life isn't worth a damn and nobody is entitled to speak their mind.
I don't agree with often,...but well put here Fuj.
There is an article in the Star today, the dick head editor actually says, no one should commit blasphemy,....what a bunch of crap,...from a very narrow minded individual,... who some how rated half a page in the a large news paper.
He goes on to say that I should respect his beliefs,....but he fails to respect mine.
How the hell does he feel he can judge what I say, simply because of his religious beliefs,...utter BULL SHIT, and only supports the radical.
FAST
For those not familiar with the root of the disagreement between Fuji and myself, heres some honest background:
I served in the CF and had multiple deployments to Afghanistan (Fuji hasn't, BTW). Actually, Ive been to many, many 3rd world shitholes of the sort Fuji suggest I relocate to, as part of my duties with the CF. Ive done more than just rant on the internet about defending freedoms . Having been to the sandbox, I've gotten to know the people and the culture (Fuji doesn't, BTW). "Pashtunwali" is a cultural code of ethics and behaviour, which emphasizes honour, hospitality, charity, mercy, etc. I've received and provided training in the fundamentals of this important aspect of dealing with the people there; it can and does save lives (Fuji has no understanding of its importance, BTW). Fuji made some very provocative and highly insulting comments towards me that I was "on record" supporting terrorism, but he was never able or willing to give any proof of this "record". Further, Fuji actually contradicted himself and agreed that I never said what he claimed I said, yet he wouldn't apologize for the insult. Its easy to be brave when your hiding behind a computer screen, but hey, that's what Fuji's all about - bold talk, big insults but ZERO accountability. Fuji, you have a lot more free time than I do, perhaps youd be kind enough to find that thread and link it so that people can determine for themselves as to who said what (if anyone is so inclined, but you not going to do it anyways, are you)
That's the crux of the situation - Fuji likes to compensate for his inferiority complex by being an internet bully. I've invited Fuji out to join my for a friendly beer, but he's always declined for a variety of bullshit reasons.
Actually, I'd still like to meet up with you for a drink, Fuji. Are you up for it? I betting the answer is no. Because when it really comes down to it, you don`t have the courage of your convictions that you claim to have.
Anyhow, back on topic: As usual, Fuji completely misses the point that Occasionally was trying to make , and that the co-founder of Charlie Hebdo echoed, and that I also agree with. You have the right to free speech. And, you are responsible for your own actions. Provoking a lunatic to attack is neither brave nor smart, and you certainly don`t deserve to die for it, but when your stupidity gets other people killed along with you, you haven't done anyone any service in exercising your right to speak freely and stupidly. You have the right to insult people, but accept your portion of responsibility for the outcome of your actions.
Sorry Fuji, but you are a coward, and an internet bully. So, you remain on ignore.......please PM me and we can make arrangements to meet up for that beer (but, I;m not holding my breathe)
No disrespect to you, FAST, but it seems theres two very narrow minded individuals & possible dickheads - one guy wont respect the other guys beliefs because he doesn;t respect my beliefs. Hummmm, sounds like a vicious circle. If only one of these guys had the courage and compassion to take some initiative to try to see it from the other guys perspective, rather than just spout piss and vinegar. Are you going to be that guy, or are you content just to continue along that same circle. Hint for you, most guys do NOT have that courage & compassion, even though they wont accept or admit it. But, I think you are the exception to that, FAST. Dont let me down, buddy!
