I'm understanding the words you're bothering to say. I'm not going to play decoder-ring with what you're not saying. If there's something you'd like to add, cough it up. I've heard "what they did didn't change the world in a positive way". That's an opinion, nothing more. I've heard "what they did was essentially write 'Allah is a doody head', on a bathroom wall". That's an opinion, nothing more. I've heard "actions have consequences", again, and again, and again while at the same time "...but they didn't deserve to be killed". Well, no shit they didn't deserve to be killed, so what are the consequences? Not censorship? Okay, then what? Boycotts? No? Then what? Liberal finger wagging and tongue clucks? That's the big scary consequences? Who gives a shit about that? Worthless. That's the white noise I'm talking about.
You are evidently hearing somebody else. None of the quotes are anything that I've said. Seriously, you feeling okay?
I thought there was no "wrong" in your universe? There's another word that starts with "g": "grownup." Is this the part where you pull a Castle and pretend this is all just "behavioral research"?
Charlie Hebdo unquestionably had the right to publish their work. Whether or not they should have published the material is another question. It's a question that can only be answered at the individual level. Some agree with their decision and some do not. I think both sides have valid points. At the end of the day, the only opinion that mattered was that of the publisher and obviously they felt like they should publish it. You may disagree with their decision, but I think we can all agree that it didn't deserve the response it got.
You want mature, fine. I forgive you. For your bad behavior in this thread, and the two Gamergate ones. You, and the rest of "leftforge". You guys probably don't deserve it, but I do. Life is too short and sad to also be lugging grudges around. So, for my own mental health, I'm letting it go.
I'm going to be extremely brave and take a stand on this issue: Violence against people exercising their right to free expression is wrong.
Only took you 131 posts to echo what everyone else said. Did Volpone give you permission, or did you come up with this your very own self?
Hey everyone. Social experiment time. Is clicking on "show ignored content" above this post worth the effort?
I must be missing something. The article says "no media outlet in the U.S. will show you these images," as if something's being censored or swept under the rug, but (a) they're written in French, which most Americans don't speak; (b) most of them are about French politics; and (c) there doesn't seem to be any particular news value to them with regard to the current situation. I mean, next we'll find out that Le Monde isn't publishing cartoons about Michigan's sales tax hike election.
That's the same logic used to censor every post-9/11 episode of South Park discussing Islam--including, ironically, one about the world freaking out because Family Guy had a bit where Muhammed hands Jesus a football or something. And those guys don't go nearly as far as CH apparently does (I can't comment for them as I've never seen their work). I will never support censorship out of fear of whack loons blowing shit up. The South Park episode I mentioned aired seven years ago, and we've had plenty of terrorist attacks just the damn same.
Who here is supporting censorship? Has a single person said they shouldn't have been allowed to publish every damn cartoon? Hasn't every one who dared voice criticism of CH started off by painstakingly and emphatically pointing out that they were and should be completely within their legal rights to do so? Free speech means you can publish what you like, and I can say that I disagree, without either of us resorting to censorship.
Seemed to me you did when you said that this was the same logic that could be used -- and sometimes was used -- to censor South Park. How can a logic that says "None of this should be censored!" be used to censor stuff?
Timely: Charlie Hebdo's Luz: No More Mohammed Cartoons Top cartoonist says topic "no longer interests me" @Diacanu disagrees.
I was talking about this part in particular, but didn't edit the quote because I was using my phone: If garamet isn't intending to imply censorship (and I'm not being sarcastic or snide), then I apologize, but there's been far too many examples of others in history that use the "That's too mean!!!" Or "That's so crass!!!" to get a subject shut down.
Yeah, Garamet is among the nobody is proposing censorship group. What you quoted -- that's not a call for censorship. It's a call for people to understand they don't live life in a vacuum.
Really? Because it kind of looks like she and a few other posters are saying they should have self-censored. It's not direct, and it's poorly hidden in an pathetic attempt at snarkily suggesting they artists involved should have acted like grown-ups if they didn't want to end up getting killed, but it's still there. Frankly it's no different from what the pope said on the matter, and it all comes back to some of you feeling the magazine and the artists should have censored themselves. So still victim-blaming, effectively. And yes, I know there will be butthurt over me calling it out for what it is, but that's exactly what it is - the crux of the argument here is that the artists should not have published the cartoons and that they should have known better than to do so, because, hey, look at what happened to them.
A) "I really think you were 100% wrong to publish that. In fact, I actively despise you for it." B) "I really think a law should have prevented you from publishing that." A is not B. Thinking that A implies B in any way, shape, or form, is truly the logic of censorship. Freedom of speech implies the option of open intense disagreement; in no way does it imply a ban on dissent.
A worse than B. A is, "You should have known not to publish that, so now I'm just going to have to kill you and everyone you work with to send a message that anyone who publishes stuff like that will be brutally murdered, their bodies dismembered, and the corpses desecrated." B is, "You violated ARS 27.312, so you have to pay a $50 fine."
