Obsession Massage

I am NOT Charlie either.

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,807
1,651
113
Oblivion
I think for an exercise we could look at the actions of 12 dentistry students here at Dalhousie, and decide we should either defend or empathize with them.
The point being, it's so much easier to defend hatred when you agree with it on some level.
I'm not saying that ANY of you are...but I've been hearing, and reading too much that leans that way.
Oui, c'est ca, la verite et la realite, malheuresment. Jiffypop, your point is well taken and exposes an inconvenient truth. Also premiums on life insurance policies for political satarists just went way up!
 

Jiffypop69

Active member
Jul 7, 2009
1,473
1
36
Oui, c'est ca, la verite et la realite, malheuresment. Jiffypop, your point is well taken and exposes an inconvenient truth. Also premiums on life insurance policies for political satarists just went way up!
Lol....

For the record I'll defend everyone's right to be an asshole...but if you could do me a favour and just try NOT to be one, that'd be great.

For the record. I wish that the these terrorists could be revived, and killed again...but part of me believes that their attack was simply, or at least partly one of convenience. If they were situated in another country they would have found a different target. It wasn't an assault on Freedom of Speech in my opinion....it was terrorism plain and simple.
As for freedom of speech, again as I mentioned...If you paint swastikas on the walls of a synagogue, you're going to jail, and not just for vandalism. If you walk around Little Italy with a tee-shirt that reads "I hate WOPS" chances are you're gonna get punched in the face...maybe worse... you have the RIGHT to do one of those. Maybe you shouldn't.
Murder is bad.
 

guelph

Active member
May 25, 2002
1,498
0
36
78
That was this group, this time. However, as Aardvark154 said, they went after everyone equally. Religious or political. They purposely set out to be asses and cause offensive shit for their own personal amusement and enjoyed the giggles for years. The more people they offended, the happier they were. That is an asshole to me. Equally opportunity assholes, but assholes none the less.

Aardvark154 said offenders, but freedom of speech and all that jazz, I say assholes.
I agree 100% I have enjoyed political satire but there is a saying "the freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"

It appears to me that their goal was not to make a political point but simply to offend as many people as possible.
 

MRBJX

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2013
1,175
123
63
I agree 100% I have enjoyed political satire but there is a saying "the freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"

It appears to me that their goal was not to make a political point but simply to offend as many people as possible.

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

The attack was not on free speech, it was an attack, in war, that was calculated.
The attack on free speech is what your government will do to you as a consequence of the attack on charlie hebdo. This is how the war is won.

Well played, but now problematic.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,631
7,075
113
I guess the person being offended would decide what offends them....
Considering there are many places where people take offense at women walking down the street alone or having jobs, my worry isn't whether people get offended but rather whether that offense is a violation of their rights.

Under Canadian law those cartoons are not considered hate speech so if someone gets upset then too bad. If people want to peacefully protest or boycott the magazine, that is their right.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,288
10
38
Toronto
I agree with people saying that the cartoons were tasteless. I don't like that kind of humor. Personally, I don't like most kind of satire since a lot of it is simply insulting some other group or opinion. That is never productive. Even South Park or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart... or even Saturday Night Live. Of course they are much more mild but the base idea for the satire is usually insulting someone's beliefs/opinions because you don't agree with the them. What ever happened to mutual respect.

The one thing that the massacre showed again was that insulting Muslims is much more dangerous than Christians (or other groups).
 

kstanb

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2008
1,305
112
63
Freedom of expression is freedom to offend, it is all or nothing because the act of offending is highly subjective. Some people will be offended more easily than others, where is the limit going to be? can we all agree to a specific threshold? likely not. then it is either full censorship or full freedom. I prefer the later.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,916
10,067
113
Room 112
A little balance.
I surely don't condone the massacre of 12 innocent people, but showing solidarity with these cartoonists, and defending their right to be offensive seems a little...much ?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
I am against all religious based satire. To me it's both insensitive and distasteful. To others it's downright offensive. But we still have to defend their rights to freedom of speech as long as it doesn't promote hatred or violence. That's why democracy works.
 

Jiffypop69

Active member
Jul 7, 2009
1,473
1
36
I am against all religious based satire. To me it's both insensitive and distasteful. To others it's downright offensive. But we still have to defend their rights to freedom of speech as long as it doesn't promote hatred or violence. That's why democracy works.
Agreed !
I'm just making the point it's not fair for ALL. In some cases we vehemently defend some people, and then we marginalize others. We work really hard against what we perceive to be hatred...and on the other hand some propagate it...I'm just trying to be careful how much I tip that scale.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
Jiffypop, your point is well taken and exposes an inconvenient truth.
I'm not so sure about that.

At this point, the state has not prosecuted or censored the students.

One can choose to agree or disagree with how Dalhousie and dentistry bodies are responding to the situation. But freedom of speech is freedom from censorship -- it is not a guarantee of immunity from the consequences of your statements.
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,147
2,497
113
The terror attack was a clear attack against freedom of expression and it was meant to strike fear into anyone who dare oppose the Muslim extremist agenda. If you are focused more on the target than the message, you are adding a quiet vote of support to the message of the terrorist by justifying his cause. I remember a passage from my school years that still sticks:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

Je Suis Charlie (AKA: Not Afraid)
 

kkelso

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2003
2,468
28
48
The terror attack was a clear attack against freedom of expression and it was meant to strike fear into anyone who dare oppose the Muslim extremist agenda. If you are focused more on the target than the message, you are adding a quiet vote of support to the message of the terrorist by justifying his cause. I remember a passage from my school years that still sticks:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

Je Suis Charlie (AKA: Not Afraid)

I'll be impressed with the "Not Afraid" crowd when they accompany their two word slogan with cartoons of Mohammad.

KK
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
14,963
2,557
113
Ghawar
Are the kind of Charlie cartoons showing nuns masturbating or
the pope wearing condom really nothing more than religious based
satire to the Catholics? As a kid I loved MAD magazine but never read
anything nearly as offensive to religion. In an interview Charbonnier said
his magazine would continue to mock Islam until it was as banal as
Catholicism. Considering that Muslims find any kind of visual depiction
of the prophet offensive it is not unexpected that showing cartoons of
the prophet in pornographic pose would infuriate the fanatics.
Let me make it clear this is not to defend the action of the terrorists.
But I think it is reasonable to presume the cartoons were calculated to
provoke some kind of retaliation.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,631
7,075
113
Are the kind of Charlie cartoons showing nuns masturbating or
the pope wearing condom really nothing more than religious based
satire to the Catholics?....
They should be. People should be allowed to point out where religious edicts (or political figures) run counter to the rest of our societal values. And they are free to feel offended if that is what is needed for them to reflect on how their religion and their daily lives interact.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,663
83
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
What doesn't offend Muslims?

They need to grow up.

Donc, Je suis Charlie aussi.
All religions are like this, Catholics lost their minds when some moron put a cross in a jar of pee... FFS

I don't care if they get offended I care if they kill people. This is where we need Robin Williams to put it all in context for us with a joke - he had a good one about all religions having fundamentalists but the Amish never blew anything up.
 

desperado

Caballero sin caballo
Oct 14, 2005
515
84
28
I fully support their right to freedom of speech, and I would never take away from what happened. It was wrong, but I am not Charlie. Just because I have the right to be an offensive bitch, doesn't mean I will use it to throw it in people's faces. I am against trolling on the internet and therefore in all forms of it. Charlie was a trolling offensive print media that I simply can not get behind. I will defend their right to be assholes, but I will not agree with their choice to be.
You don't have to throw anything in peoples faces. You would offend extremists just by bieng what you are. A liberated women. That would be all the justification they need to shoot up a school or a coffee shop or what ever target they choose.
If you are going to condem terrorists, never follow your condemnation with the word BUT!
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts