Slashdot Mirror
Publications Divided On Self-Censorship After Terrorist Attack
New submitter wmofr writes: Major U.S. and British publications refused to publish related satirical cartoons, at least those about the "prophet", after the terrorist attack in Charlie Hebdo's office, which had 12 people killed. An editor of the Independent said:"But the fact is as an editor you have got to balance principle with pragmatism, and I felt yesterday evening a few different conflicting principles: I felt a duty to readers; a duty to the dead; I felt a duty to journalism – and I also felt a duty to my staff. I think it would have been too much of a risk to unilaterally decide in Britain to be the only newspaper that went ahead and published so in a sense it is true one has self-censored in a way I feel very uncomfortable with. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make." But still many media organizations bravely publishing those cartoons, declining self-censorship.
Charlie Hebdo's surviving staff say the magazine will publish again next week, saying, "stupidity will not win." Meanwhile, cartoonists around the world have published strips in response to the attack. The Onion has a poignant take as well. With regard to the attackers, one suspect turned himself in to police, and the other two remain at large.
If you're afraid of people in your own nation, then you have bigger problems than a political cartoon
If every newspaper in France were to re-print some of the more controversial cartoons form Charlie Hebdo, or offer to print and distribute next week's issue as a special insert, it would send a strong message to terrorists that the "Streisand Effect" is real.
I've already seen one mainstream American daily run a bunch of Charlie Hebdo cartoons in its online edition, including some depicting Mohammad (yes, THAT Mohammad). Without the mass murder, a lot fewer people would've seen that image.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Obligatory "it's not censorship unless it's a federal law" SJW stance.
Mohammed was a murderer, a pedophile, a liar and a rapist. All of these straight from the Koran.
Please send some gunmen my way for pointing out the truth.
When these incidents occur, burn 10,000 Korans for every innocent person murdered. Covered in bacon grease.
This is a better article[NSFW] from the Onion.
Islam caters to a really special kind of demagoguery that its followers can be more batshit crazy over a cartoon than even the most committed abortion clinic bombers.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Obligatory xkcd
http://xkcd.com/468/
Perhaps the best strategy in this case would be for all creative artists and writers to produce as much content as they can and Creative Commons license it, so the content can all be broadcast everywhere and we all agree to post and publish it in every medium on every forum possible. That way, anyone who would take offense is so inundated they can not possibly respond.
I think it would have been too much of a risk to unilaterally decide in Britain to be the only newspaper that went ahead and published
Then don't. Call them up, sure you're competitors but at least some feel just like you. And if you manage to enlist some, more might join you. Accept conditionals if you have to like "If at least five national newspapers publish we will too" until you have five. Or you were the only one, in which case journalism is already pretty boned.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Anybody that self censors or allows others to censor you, is guilty of aiding the terrorist.
Stand your ground, but be prepared to fight back by being armed to the teeth, and have security measures in place.
Outlaw islam. It's not a real religion anyway; it's an idealogy, a form of government and we already have that. Also use the Mohammed Emote. (((:~(>>
If you're a profiteering advert monetizing clickbait pandering mainstream outlet with a mandate to deliver ROI on content and ensure channel marketing buy-in consistently realizes revenue, then please work to censor all 11 forbidden media words as well as any overt references to political, social, or religious figures that may impact quarterly earnings, subscribership, and total time of view. Also take note that wearable technology is fashionable this year.
if on the other hand you're an actual newspaper, journalist, podcaster, or god forbid television news programme that works to inform viewers objectively and spark meaningful discussion of current events be they political, social, or religious regardless of their tie-in ability to a product or service, please accept my sincere condolences as this type of response has always been a threat to your work. now that someone has actualized it, the real question is, are your convictions still genuine when tested?
Good people go to bed earlier.
....you do not want to print the pictures because you are afraid for your own life, those of your staff or relatives, well I am sorry to say that the extremists have WON.
No to mention if it gives the slightest hint that it worked, would invite others to act like that to silence further opposition with those with dissenting views.
They aren't concerned about their staff, they are cowards concerned about themselves.
Means the terrorists ( muslims ) win.
Others here have alluded simiarly. What if EVERY SINGLE MAJOR DAILY IN THE WORLD published the same images? They would no longer have a specific target and the streisand effect would be complete.
It's the antibody response to, "Hurr, u cant ban me from slashdert for talking about GNAA bcuz Freedom of Speach hurrdurr."
Granted, in the case of France, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution has no bearing. But I speak about the general use case - this is merely a shift from one incorrect meme (quoting the First Amendment where it's completely irrelevant) into another incorrect meme (only Feds can censor).
Who talks like that?
Islam... in layman's terms
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- 0.6% Muslim
Australia -- 1.5% Muslim
Canada -- 1.9% Muslim
China -- 1.8% Muslim
Italy -- 1.5% Muslim
Norway -- 1.8% Muslim
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- 2% Muslim
Germany -- 3.7% Muslim
United Kingdom -- 2.7% Muslim
Spain -- 4% Muslim
Thailand -- 4.6% Muslim
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- 8% Muslim
Philippines -- 5% Muslim
Sweden -- 5% Muslim
Switzerland -- 4.3% Muslim
The Netherlands -- 5.5% Muslim
Trinidad & Tobago -- 5.8% Muslim
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- 10% Muslim
India -- 13.4% Muslim
Israel -- 16% Muslim
Kenya -- 10% Muslim
Russia -- 15% Muslim
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia -- 32.8% Muslim
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia -- 40% Muslim
Chad -- 53.1% Muslim
Lebanon -- 59.7% Muslim
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:
Albania -- 70% Muslim
Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
Sudan -- 70% Muslim
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- 83% Muslim
Egypt -- 90% Muslim
Gaza -- 98.7% Muslim
Indonesia -- 86.1% Muslim
Iran -- 98% Muslim
Iraq -- 97% Muslim
Jordan -- 92% Muslim
Morocco -- 98.7% Muslim
Pakistan -- 97% Muslim
Palestine -- 99% Muslim
Syria -- 90% Muslim
Tajikistan -- 90% Muslim
Turkey -- 99.8% Muslim
United Arab Emirates -- 96% Muslim
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here, there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, as in:
Afghanistan -- 100% Muslim
Saudi Arabia -- 100% Muslim
Somalia -- 100% Muslim
Yemen -- 100% Muslim
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states, the most radical Muslims intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims for a variety of reasons.
QUOTE:
"Be
No demagogy this time - if a journal, author or any citizen feels the need, out of FEAR, to self-censor, that's a huge victory for the douchebag terrorists. The "I am Charlie" hashtags and such are nice and all, but essentially useless garbage. The only thing that can now accomplish something to make everyone more safe, is if everyone who can, posts Mohammed cartoons. The kind, to be precise, that the terrorists don't want. Straisand it to hell and back, flood the airwaves, the paper-waves, the social media and even the walls with Mohammed cartoons. Next time a shithead has the bright idea to kill some journalist or cartoonist, he/she will remember the backlash and perhaps think twice.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I would fully support such actions. On a related note, I tend to feel that the best way to fight violent over-reactions in response to butthurt (which is what this is), is to bombard potential offendees with overwhelming amounts of extremely offensive material. Eventually they'd have to wake up to the futility of censoring things which cause them butthurt.
If the Newspapers of the world had any backbone at all, they'd all band together and republish the cartoon front page on Monday along with pictures of the attackers with captions that say "This image is being published at the request of these 2 infidels."
Along with that they should declare that every time a reporter working for one of their papers is killed in an attempt to silence them, they will again run Muhammads image on the front page of their papers. The responsibility for the image will be the attackers and they'll burn in hell for their idolatry. Want to stay out of hell? Stop murdering people.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Do you have nothing against Islam?
Then you have nothing against stoning, amputations, flogging, female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, beheadings, "honour" killings, repression of free speech, abolition of Parliament and its replacement with Shariah, banning of music, banning of beer and wine, banning of pork, dressing women in burkhas, beating of wives, mutiple wives, killing of rape victims, persecution of Jews and Christians, child brides, repression of reason and questioning, islamic police states, burning of churches, killing anyone who leaves islam, killing anyone who questions the teachings of islam, total intolerance of other religions, inferior status of women, violent Jihad against non-muslims, arranged marriages, acid attacks, public hangings, mutilations, rewriting of history, denial of islamic atrocities...
Our strongest weapon in the fight against extremist religious groups is continued freedom.
If they attack us over free speech, let us speak ten times as freely.
If they attack us over free religion, let us start ten new churches of ten different faiths.
If they attack us for treating people equally, let us treat them equally as well.
We should not attack them in retaliation - that just makes us both wrong. Violence will not solve this problem. This is a war of ideas - and freedom of speech will carry our ideas further and louder than theirs ever will. It will take generations, but it's already in progress. They are resorting to violence now because they can already see that they cannot win by words.
Here are folks in the Muslim community and what they say about the attacks.
But I also have to add that all religious people are a little mentally ill: they believe with no evidence at all and even with evidence to the contrary in a super natural being that created the universe and listens to them, knows when they are naughty or nice and for goodness sakes, they better watch out!
See, folks who study history and literature have plenty of evidence that humans created God/gods to explain the super natural. Why the Sun and Moon were once worshiped as gods until people observed their true nature.
The Bible is nothing but Iron Age Jewish mythology and the New Testament is the re-telling of pagan myth and eastern philosophy (like the Golden Rule, Confucius) attributed to the fictional character Jesus - although, some historians have come to the conclusion that there may have been an apocalyptic preacher kook by the name of Jesus running around at a couple of thousand years ago.
The universe is proving to be much more complicated and awe inspiring than what some ignorant goat herders could ever have imagined in their pathetic little brains.
Christians, Jews and Muslims are incapable of accepting the Truth that their beliefs are non-sense and are causing the World much harm and holding the human race back with their idiotic and irrational beliefs. And until religious non-sense is eradicated from earth, we'll have to continue with this bullshit by stupid people who insist on believing in a version of Santa Claus for adults.
How about a duty to intelligence?
Look to the future and consider two outcomes: where media self-censors based on threats of attack from extremists, or where media blatantly continues in the face of such threats.
The decisions made today will bring about one of these scenarios. It's a simple case of "payback horizon": how far ahead do you plan for.
If you self-censor right now, it will protect your people and your business near-term, but over time you will find yourself increasingly subject to threats and attacks, you will be self-censoring more and more.
One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to put off short-term rewards for a larger long-term gain. Being frightened into submission has near-term benefits, but those policies will not end well.
See Bullying.
If you're a coward and you side with Terrorists making us all live in Fear, you don't publish the cartoons.
If you're brave and refuse to live in Fear, you publish the cartoons.
And then, a week later, you write an editorial about how the cartoons are disgusting.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Don't censor yourself more or *LESS* because of what happened. If you do either, you are letting these events change your belief in what is right. If you never had a belief in what was right to begin with, well I can't help you there.
Even if this was true, you are justifying their murders... Nice job of blaming the victim.
Well, maybe, not all is lost for you...
It was incredibly offensive to Christians, but nobody was killed over it. Nor even credibly threatened with murder.
The NYTimes article you linked to makes no mention of any "threats". Nor does it allege, the theater fire was an arson. The sole tear-gas attack mentioned in the article was over a different movie — one glorifying abortions, rather than insulting Christianity.
Comparing a murder of 12 people to a tear-gas attack is quite mind boggling...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Where exactly has been the imperialistic war? What minerals and resources did the imperialist forces take from muslim lands?
:
Or are you
1) just a brain-dead fuck who says things he doesn't understand/ or
2) simply an apologist for islamofascists? (as opposed to muslims).
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Well, whether they are afraid of the terrorists or of their staff leaving over this, these editors definitely are cowards. By definition: coward -- (a person who shows fear or timidity).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I would say the appropriate response would be for all supporting media to print the offending images prominently. Send the message that rather than silence the creators what the action has done has created massive support and resulted in further and extensive publication of the offending material. Create the idea that the actions have had the reverse effect.
Frankly I find most political cartoons useless flamebait. They tend to shallow and tend to be more preaching to choir than a source of useful dialog. I would like to see more publications decide to not print things that do not help.
But they need to decide to do that out and not be forced to do that out of fear.
Self censorship based on your ethic and morals is a good thing.
Censorship based on fear of violence is a bad thing.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
> Nor does it allege, the theater fire was an arson.
Dude, it is right there in the fucking TITLE of the article.
> Even if this was true, you are justifying their murders... Nice job of blaming the victim.
Er what? What part of siding with the victims is victim blaming? Are you one of those people who can only see black and white, who thinks people are only heroes or villains?
> It was incredibly offensive to Christians, but nobody was killed over it. Nor even credibly threatened with murder.
Getting beaten with a club for being in the audience is more than just a threat. Cops shoot people for less than that.
> The sole tear-gas attack mentioned in the article was over a different movie — one glorifying abortions, rather than insulting Christianity.
You misread. That was another attack and tear gas was not mentioned. But, since you bring it up, do you think that attack was because of a secular objection to abortion? Are you justifying that attack? Nice job blaming the victim.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2...
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Voila! It is France's own fault and they deserve what violence they get over it.
A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandates killing people for certain speech...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Meant to say:
If you buy 10,000 copies of the Koran and buy your own bacon grease and have a way to burn the books safely, observing all relevant fire-safety codes, go for it.
It gets even worse now that the AP has decided to censor other blasphemous photos like Serrano's Piss Christ.
It was incredibly offensive to Christians, but nobody was killed over it. Nor even credibly threatened with murder.
So you are defending the AP's decision to censor it? What the hell is wrong with you?
Seems like your post is just mindless self-righteousness. Anything the OP said must be disputed, even if it means abandoning the internal consistency of your own arguments.
If that was half-way true then Europe would now be a war-ravaged waste land after 44-odd million Muslims living in Europe took to arms over the Danish cartoon published years ago.
Oh, you mean that didn't happen. It's as if someone is not interpreting what they are reading correctly. hmm.
The title reads: "Police Suspect [emphasis mine -mi] Arson In Fire at Paris Theater". Suspicion is not allegation — indeed, the article itself states: "The fire, if [emphasis mine -mi] it proves to be arson, would be ...". As I said, there is no allegation — only suspicions. And it happened in 1988 — surely enough for the matter to settle and any suspicions to be either confirmed or rejected... That no search brings up articles confirming that suspicion today, can only mean one thing: it was rejected and NY Times had nothing agenda-advancing to publish...
The calling them "assholes" part.
The article mentions this — but without any details. We don't expect much from NY Times, but here on Slashdot an accusation — even if made anonymously — should contain links to evidence.
I searched the article for the word "tear" — the only actual attack mentioned was that for an abortion-glorifying movie, not anything about Christians.
I have no idea — and would rather not follow the excited NY Times' reporter's example of speculating. Many (all?) religions consider abortion to be an abomination — for all we know, it could've been Muslims. Plenty of non-religious people frown on the procedure too — if you wish to blame that attack on a misguided Christian, you'll need better evidence.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
My point is, the AP's decision was not driven by threat of violence and is therefor different from the topic at hand.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If you as a publisher self-censor to "protect your staff", then you can't complain when the government wants to censor you to "protect the country".
It's a good thing that France has such strict gun ownership laws. Those terrorists might have run into difficulty shooting everyone had one of their law-abiding victims been armed! Good lord, could you imagine that happening in Texas? There'd have been at least two old men returning fire in under five seconds.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
No, this would've happened, if the 44-odd million Muslims actually followed their professed religion in full. Fortunately, they don't — not all of them. Unfortunately, enough of them do...
My point remains — their religion actually does mandate capital punishment for anybody insulting it or its prophets — unlike any other modern religion. And for that reason, it is the moral duty of all civilized people to mock it, ridicule it, and otherwise prevent it from spreading and, better yet, eradicate it for good.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I know it's really easy to just lambast the publishers as cowards for refusing to publish the cartoons (as you post anonymously or semi-anonymously on slashdot, you brave soul), but it's not an easy choice to make. It's been clearly demonstrated that by publishing mohammed cartoons, there's a non-zero chance that some nut-job will break into your building and murder a bunch of your staff. Are you as an editor willing to take that chance? Are you willing to put your staff at risk, even for a minimal chance of violence against your station? It's sooooo easy to criticize them for not publishing offensive cartoon, but I really doubt that the majority of you would post a crude drawing of mohammed on your facebook accounts, or drop off a few thousand copies of an offensive cartoon in your neighborhood mailboxes (with your personal address listed). Because then you're truly willing to take the same upon the same risk that these cartoonists (and their publishers) take.
From a litigation standpoint alone, is it worth publishing an offensive cartoon? Probably not if you're in a litigious friendly nation. If you're the editor, and if some shit goes down, and there's the slightest possibility your organization could be held liable for the deaths of your staff because you totally *knew* this could happen, and could have avoided it by not publishing the offensive article - you bet your ass they'll get sued by the families of the victims. That risk probably isn't worth whatever benefit they get for being more ballsy in the eyes of the viewer. The editors know this and factor this in their decision making.
Whether to publish or not is more of a Prisoner's dilemma than it is Streisand effect as mentioned elsewhere in the comments here, except with more than 2 "prisoners" (publishers - assume not publishing is equivalent to testifying in the analogy). The better move for yourself is to not publish and have no risk. But the better move for the collective is to publish. If all the publishers decided to publish, that would be the greatest overall benefit for freedom of speech, because it demonstrates they're not afraid of terrorism. It also minimizes the risk for each publisher, because terrorists don't have the resources to target all of the publishers in existence. They might even give up completely, realizing there's too many people offending their religion. But if nobody publishes cartoons out of fear, it reinforces the idea that threats of violence work (and the censored SouthPark scene in the "I learned something today" segment is true). If only handful of publishers decide to publish offensive mohammed cartoons, then it still reinforces the idea that threats of violence work (because most publishers aren't doing it, clearly because they're afraid of terrorism), AND it puts these few publishers at a much greater risk of terrorism. It fucking sucks, but the only way this is going to work is if a large majority of publishers decide to print these cartoons as a response.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
Fuck Islam. Fuck censorship.
Me and my boss at lunch today:
Me: "They should have had that building way better secured, especially after being firebombed."
Boss: "What would you do to secure it?"
Me: "Armored building like a US embassy, armed guards at the door, and a heavy armored door between the lobby and work area."
Boss: "What if they hit it with a rocket launcher? It'll go through even an armored door."
Me: "Maybe build it in a basement?"
Boss: "Or you could just not print Mohammed cartoons."
And that's what any business is going to do, the much cheaper and easier solution. The terrorists won. No business could print such things after yesterday.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
My point is, the AP's decision was not driven by threat of violence and is therefor different from the topic at hand.
And what then was it driven by? Fairness in censorship? That's defensible?
Israel, you nincompoop.
How about showing to the world how freedom of speech really works and publishing some disgusting pictures of Jesus getting ass raped, jews sucking of a hogs and so on and on. How about god fucking some prominent US jesus freak form state of Texas?
How about some disgusting crap about mormons and their under-age wives?
Oh, I have even better one. Publish picture of Obama fucking himself in the ass with a nuke while reading The K J bible.
If you can not do this crap... then free press and freedom of expression is a joke!
Strawman arguments are lies.
How about showing to the world how freedom of speech really works and publishing some disgusting pictures of Jesus getting ass raped, jews sucking of a hogs and so on and on. How about god fucking some prominent US jesus freak form state of Texas?
How about some disgusting crap about mormons and their under-age wives?
Oh, I have even better one. Publish picture of Obama fucking himself in the ass with a nuke while reading The K J bible.
If you can not do this crap... then free press and freedom of expression is a joke!
Will this show real backbone? Freedom? Or is this too complicated to deal with?
Voila! It is France's own fault and they deserve what violence they get over it.
I said nothing of the sort. But it's rather hard to dispute the fact that they treat their immigrant community like shit and that in so doing they've made it that much easier for their youth to become radicalized. When you marginalize an entire population you can expect them to become a tad bit resentful about it. Does that justify this behavior? Of course not.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
ITS SIMPLER DUMBASS. SEE SECRET NAZI PLANS ON HERE:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
> The title reads: "Police Suspect [emphasis mine -mi] Arson In Fire at Paris Theater". Suspicion is not allegation
Ah, dictionary pedantry for the lose. You are one of those black-and-white thinkers after all.
> That no search brings up articles confirming that suspicion today, can only mean one thing:
> it was rejected and NY Times had nothing agenda-advancing to publish...
Wow, proof by ignorance. And "agenda-advancing" such an impartial analysis. Perhaps it just means you haven't figured out how to google in french. They arrested 30 people in the investigation and five people were convicted.
> The calling them "assholes" part.
Do you deny that they were assholes? Hero or villain, are the only choices. Makes your life simple, too bad it also means your ability to understand the world you live in is massively impaired by that. But as long as you feel good in the cloak of false righteousness, who care?
> and would rather not follow the excited NY Times' reporter's example of speculating
> here on Slashdot an accusation — even if made anonymously — should contain links to evidence.
Ah, yes. You turn it into a fight over nit-picking the parsing of a news article rather than looking for a better understanding. Hey good job Sheldon Cooper. That I didn't link to every single source but synthesized them and linked to a simple one means I am completely wrong and also full of moral turpitude! Double-win for you! To bad the result is just more ignorance on your part.
Screw that. If you don't like something, don't read it/look at it. End of story.
i eat sand and murder cartoonists
i am the real freedom fighter that those 9/11 truthers are always going on about!
When anybody not even excuses, but merely explains rape by the victim's "slut-like" clothing or suggestive behavior, we tend to get (justly) outraged by such blame-the-victim attitude.
Why should attempts to explain murders by the nebulous "being treated like shit" by the victims be treated any different?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
israel, where the jews came from, the muslims took over, and they got their land back in 48. the muslims tried to get it back and the israelies beat them in a week. try again
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Citations needed. Try to stay on topic, though — this particular thread is not about race.
Wow, you can make anything sound bad, can you not?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Words have meaning — not just consequences. Deal with it.
Whatever. The burden of proof is on you — you made the claim: "movie-theater was set on fire by Christians because it showed a movie Christians hated". As evidence, you provided a link to an article, which neither substantiated your claim nor made any such claims itself (with or without substantiation). Your claim is thus dismissed as unsubstantiated. Have a nice day.
Do you deny, that slutty-dressed rape-victims were dressed like sluts? These ladies would like to talk to you...
Khmm, I sense certain frustration...
It means, the claims you made remain unsubstantiated. They may still be valid — but we don't know. Although, considering the number of times you've already replied without including any other links, we probably do know...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
France has marginalized 7+% of her population. This breeds resentment and makes it that much easier for people to make irrational decisions. Blinding yourself to this reality helps no one. I am not excusing the behavior. Nor am I really attempting to explain it.
There is no explanation or justification for this but the sad truth of the matter is that such incidents are going to continue. What do you suggest doing about it? Walling off a large portion of your population into de-facto ghettos is not a winning strategy in the long term. The only way to defeat an ideology is to demonstrate that your own is superior; treating 7% of your people as second class citizens does not seem like an effective way to do that, from my perspective, but what do I know?
Europe needs to figure out how to welcome and assimilate immigrants, as the United States and Canada do, or just man up and close the borders. Either outcome would be preferable to the status quo. The current situation benefits no one.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That's off-topic.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
No, we need to "Edit" the religion, and stamp out the practices we find incompatible with our culture. Just as was done with Christianity (stoning adulterers and witches, killing homosexuals etc)
Oil, mostly. The middle east is rich in it, everyone wants it, so all the world powers are playing games to secure influence in the region.
Israel, where the Jews lived 2000 years ago (along with a bunch of other people), where various people including some Jews lived for the following 2000 years, and which was then taken by force, from the people who had been living there continuously for generations, by the British and friends, and given to people mostly born in Europe who may have been extremely distant descendants of the Jews who had lived there those 2000 years before, as a way of assuaging their own guilt over not stopping Nazi assholes.
Oh, and by the way, the Jews' folk history says that they originally took that same land from its prior inhabitants in a genocidal invasion. I don't know if that's true, but since that's how people usually get land, I'm inclined to believe it. So if we can find the descendants of the Philistines or the Midianites or whoever, can we give the land back to them? I honestly don't know who they'd be, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of them were among the people displaced to create Israel...
Israel is there now, and it would be a stupid mistake to ignore that or try to undo it. What's done is done, and 60 years makes Israel as legitimate as any other state. That doesn't change the fact that it was another stupid mistake to create Israel in the first place, and, yes, that mistake was absolutely an imperialistic and racist one.
States based on ethnicity or religion are a bad idea anyway, no matter how popular they may be.
Oh, and to avoid being called an "islamofascist", I'd like to point out that Muhammed was a pedophilic warlord cult leader. Actually not a bad guy as pedophilic warlord cult leaders go, but a pedophilic warlord cult leader nonetheless. And obviously he was not inspired by any real sky fairy. Not that any of that is relevant to anything going on this century. In independent news, the most visible carriers of the banner of Islam right now are fanatical tribal assholes who can't handle the real world, are trying to hide from it using religion, and would make any bad thing Israel has ever done look like naughty toddler games if they got any real power.
Yes, you are. By implying, that the victims — White and Christians (mostly) — are in any way, shape, or form responsible — even if in part (however small) — for their own deaths, you are blaming them and are thus no different from those justly-denounced policemen, who explain rapes by mini-skirts.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
> Words have meaning — not just consequences. Deal with it.
No words have meanings you dictionary pedants can never deal with that. Suspect and alleged are synonyms.
> Do you deny, that slutty-dressed rape-victims were dressed like sluts?
I get it now, just like Sheldon Cooper what it comes down to is pedantry for me but you are free to make the worst possible interpretation of my words. You need to read up on the principle of charity. Unless your only interest is in masturbatory self-righteousness rather than increasing your understanding, then keep on doing what you are doing. Seems to be working for you.
> . Although, considering the number of times you've already replied without including any other links, we probably do know...
Having decided that you are a dick, I find it more pleasing for you to continue in righteous ignorance than to inform you. Even if I get modded down to -1, I'll still have the pleasure of knowing that you are going around not only believing a falsehood but taking it as validation of your world view. In the long run you suffer from being wrong waaaay more than I suffer from not correcting you.
No, that was the ENTIRE point of the topic. That pulling piss christ just makes things worse because the threshold for censorship is now even lower. That once upon a time we used to be brave, but now cowards. But apparently you are so wrapped up in your simplistic pseudo-moralism that this has all gone way over your head and all you care about is scoring technical points devoid of any meaning.
That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.
On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God. Sanitizing that will be much more difficult. Places like Indonesia and Malaysia may be doing a decent job of it despite the difficulties, but that's because their populations, largely, can not read the original text (in Arabic).
Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Frankly I find most political cartoons useless flamebait. They tend to shallow and tend to be more preaching to choir than a source of useful dialog.
Excellent point.
I implied nothing of the sort but feel free to keep reading things that aren't there. Bonus points for the equation to rape victim blaming. Did you borrow that one from the Democrats? Interesting choice given your signature line.
I highly doubt any one of the victims of this heinous crime are responsible (directly or indirectly) for French economic and immigration policy. Does that satisfy you? I'm guessing it won't.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
What I am seeing is that for the past several decades the West, and I mean, European and North American countries, has been vigorously competing among themselves to become the most 'bend over' country for the Moslems
What has all the appeasement programs brought? I mean, ever since the oil crisis during the 1970's the Moslems has brought *NO BENEFIT* for the West
What is more ridiculous is that during the past decades the Western countries have tried their best to DUMB DOWN their respective societies by brainwashing their people with politically correct concept such as "diversity"
Diversity by itself is no problem - I am, after all, a Chinese, and diversity means a Chinese such as me, gets to add my experience, my viewpoints and my voice, to enrich the society that I live in
But too much emphasis in the 'diversity' means the Whites have been actively discounting their own cultural value in order to replace it with ideas / traditions from the Moslem world
What is interesting / troubling is that the Western societies don't seem to detect the irony and the conflict that the Moslem world would bring them
For example - them politically correct folks support feminism, but on the other hand, the same politically correct folks embrace the Moslems' view that the female folks are of the 'inferior' kind, so inferior that the female must wear burka and/or cover themselves up from head to toe
As one whose culture isn't based on the Western politically correct camp, I find it really troubling that a society which encourages feminism equality permits the Moslems to treat their women folks like trash
But then I reckon, to the West, a view from a Chinese is not important at all. After all, the West's suspicion on the Chinese culture gets worsen as time passes by
On the other hand, views from the Moslems, however, must be taken seriously, and must be implemented immediately. After all, to the mostly so-called 'atheist West', their own Western societal value pales when compares to the 'Allah Culture'
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
BTW, here's a quote that sums it up rather succinctly, emphasis mine:
“In Europe right now there’s a tremendous amount of anti-immigration sentiment,” Daniel Benjamin, a former U.S. counter-terrorism official now with the Brookings Institution in Washington, said on Bloomberg Television. “The danger here is that we see ever greater confrontations, provocations and the like, and that will drive radicalization. That is a very difficult thing for the authorities to manage.”
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Guess how we can tell you haven't read the Old Testament?
I don't necessarily think any victim-blaming was going on. It doesn't matter who's responsible for the youth being so disaffected that they'll blow themselves up. The fact is, very few comfortably employed citizens of a democratic society strap bombs to themselves.
Poverty breeds violent crime. It doesn't matter if the poverty is caused by $EVIL_GREEDY_CORPORATION or $MEDDLING_GOVERNMENT_PROGRAM or dumb luck or anything else. Poor people with no future and therefore nothing to lose do bad things.
If you can do something to fix that problem, you will decrease the number of desperate people doing desperate thing. And I'm not suggesting a liberal solution, or a conservative solution, or anything else. Just that the cause is "poor people with no future" and not "incited hatred by terrorist leaders."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Ah, yes, I forgot that it was the Muslims who killed over 6 millions Jews in the second world war. Obviously, we can also blame them for Apartheid, the slavery trade, and the inquisition. Extremism is not the occupation of a sole religion; it is inbred into human nature (as your bigotism reveals).
If I post a negative comment / comic about Blacks or Homosexuals, I'm considered an extremely offensive hate-monger. But if I post a negative comment / comic about religion, I'm "exercising free speech"? Amazing how the media and society in general here in the West.has become a bunch of two-faced hypocrites.
Whenever something the victim has said or done is used to excuse — or even merely explain — an attack on him, it is victim-blaming. When his actions/words were perfectly legal — whether it is the revealing clothing, or following a suspicious character on public street, or mocking somebody's religion, or even "not caring" for somebody's dire economic situation — such victim-blaming becomes abhorrent.
Yeah, a famous excuse by Illiberals. Only it is not quite true. Congo, for example, may be the world's poorest country, but Iceland is at the top of the number of crimes per capita.
Citation needed. While we do not (yet) know the background of these criminals, the Tsarnaev brothers were reasonably comfortable. Palestinians in Gaza are much wealthier than Egyptians behind the border. 9/11-attackers were from Saudi Arabia — and although not all residents of that country are rich, all citizens are very well off. Bin Laden was a bona-fide billionaire...
Poverty may or may not increase the number of property crimes, but it does not make one a terrorist, from what I see.
The assholes responsible for the attack being discussed were not desperate. Nor did they do a "desperate thing". Off-topic much?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I say print images of Mohammad in every single paper, every single day for a decade until these fu**tards get over it. Turn it and them into a joke.
If the mainstream Islamic community gets bent out of shape over it then tell them it's compensation/recompense/punishment for the excesses enacted on the rest of society by the radical fringe THEY failed to moderate.
What ever we do, we certainly can't appease them or restrict our freedom of speech as a result of this atrocity because if you give in on this one the radical fringe will simply become emboldened and will just find something else to take exception to.
This is how religions work at their most basic level - social or physical intimidation to force people to follow their respective ridiculous dogmas. We need to start short-circuiting these tactics anywhere we find them
I was very Christian growing up, Sunday school every week, Church (what a bore) every so often. My dad being in the Air Force and always moving elsewhere. Conflicting views were expressed while attending these, more so on the East and West coast of the US, but I'd shine it on.
It wasn't until I was in the Army and had my first "religious group talk", one "fact" I brought up (this from a church in Texas) was shot down so soundly I rethought this Jesus thing, never before had I any doubt about what I was being told or taught.
I became enlightened you could say, if you really think about it, it becomes obvious.
I feel it's what the Muslims and Christians are afraid of, any deviation from what they believe, that Mohammad and Jesus respectively have the ear of God. keeping the two from being gods themselves is the first commandment.
Christian: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Muslim: Say, "Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. [He commands] that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason."
Why don't they just admit it? They don't have the balls to face Islam. They're scared to death to publish anything that might piss off somebody. Pansy journalists!
A religion, or more broadly any religious or non-religious creed, that mandates capital punishment for blasphemy is problematic. Adherents of such a religion should be treated the same as any person who cries out death threats in response to perceived verbal offenses.
However, I wonder if this is more a matter of ethnicity rather than religion. Do the roughly half a million Muslim African-Americans hold the same views as those of Arab descent? How about the Muslims from India?
...if you really think that blaming a whole religious group for the actions of a few extremists (no matter how monstrous or violent their acts) and calling for their deportation and/or extermination using arguments that seem right out of the worst Nazi propaganda about the Jews (except "Jews" is replaced by "Muslims") is going to resolve anything, perhaps it's time for a little visit to a psychiatrist. But what's really scary, REALLY SCARY, is that some of those messages were upvoted as being "Informative" or "Insightful" or "Interesting" by enough people to reach level 4 to 5.
Both the authors and those who upvoted those messages are at least as bad as the extremist Muslims who claim killing a bunch of unarmed people, some of whom were up to 80 years old, shooting them in the back, and menacing a child to get its mum to open a door is "right" in name of their religion. Both groups sicken me. It's disgusting to use an act that killed a bunch of people upstanding to the freedom of speech - no matter how bad taste that freedom may be at times - to justify calls for exterminating millions of people. You people ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Potato == PotAHto
Not much difference there, one is a stepping stone to the other one, the former of which seems to follow the religions guide book more closely than the latter.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If they don't, then they are either hiding it, or are ignorant — possibly, because they can't read the original Koran in Arabic themselves. For the scripture is quite explicit...
No, I don't think, this is due to race or ethnicity — there are plenty of Arab Christians, for example, and they aren't anywhere as crazy as the men being discussed.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I hereby pledge to buy 12 copies of any local newspaper, magazine or other hard copy publication that publishes the offending cartoons. One copy for each person murdered.
I suggest all other here do the same, lets give these companies a financial incentive to be bold.
During WWII Danish citizens all wore yellow stars when Jews were required to have them. We should publish the cartoons on every billboard and lamppost to demonstrate that that these attacks have the opposite of the intended effect.
Your response is the typical soft mush of someone who has not spent any time looking into Islam. I don't know the solution, but I'm positive 'Coexist' bumper stickers aren't it.
their religion actually does mandate capital punishment ... unlike any other modern religion.
Biased much?
The main religious text of every Abrahamic religion promotes violence and killing. The Old Testament is still cited by fundamental Christians (see the U.S.) and Jews (see Israel) to legitimize their violent acts. It may not necessarily be violence to other religions, but it's still violence. (I don't know the other religious texts nearly as well so I can't really speak for them, but I'm certain some non-Abrahamic religions promote some form of religious violence in their text as well.)
But the mainstream Jews and Christians have moved away from the extremes of their ideology and on to more moderate viewpoints. They're still picking and choosing the passages to interpret and follow, but now they're picking the less extreme passages and interpreting them in more moderate ways. The fundamentalists in Christianity and Judiasm are marginalized, and given little to no attention (with the exceptions being the fundamental population of Christians in the U.S. and Jews in Israel, and even then, they're kept in check by equally loud or louder moderate voices).
Muslim extremism is still very much in the limelight of their religion. The extreme viewpoints are constantly in the news, constantly being talked about. Hell, the most wealthy, powerful, and famous Muslims, who often act as role models for many other Muslims, are all extremists. Look at the leaders of Saudi Arabia or Iran, who are clearly extremists. Extremism is given significant attention. There are entire political parties dedicated to extreme interpretations of the Koran. And even if they're discouraged from the extremes, Muslims are exposed to it from youth. Hell, we're all exposed to Muslim extremism from youth.
That is the difference. That is where Islam is currently at, not at the opposite end of "modern religions" but merely a few centuries behind. Islam is currently where Christianity was a few hundred years ago, and is where Judiasm was a thousand years ago. The big question is how to get everybody to reach the points of moderation that Christianity and Judiasm are at. How do you marginalize the extremists?
Denouncing the religion as bad, as you are doing, will not serve those ends. Continuing to bring to attention the violent aspects of the Muslim faith is exactly what people don't do to Christianity and Judiasm (or any other religion for that matter). Implying that it should be gone, as you are doing, is no different than a Muslim person trying to get rid of you for being non-Muslim.
In fact, I'll go a little further and say that the perspective you've taken is exactly the perspective of Muslim extremists. The only difference between you and a terrorist is you haven't quite gotten there. You're still only talking about how bad it is, rather than doing anything about it. Why? I don't know. Maybe you're suppressing that ultimate conclusion to keep your morality. Maybe you're living too comfortable a life and don't want to lose your lifestyle. Maybe you're a coward and trying to incite other people to do what you can't. Maybe it's a combination of multiple factors.
That is, of course, the solution. You can't exactly make people cowards, but you can allow them better lives, and promote less extreme versions of their ideology. You can promote the moderate aspects instead of putting the entire religion of Islam on the defensive. You can denounce government leaders or religious leaders who hold extreme viewpoints, and maybe not prop them up as allies or business partners. You can help make the extremists poor and the moderates wealthy, the extremists weak and the moderates powerful, thereby setting role models who are moderate rather than extreme. These things will help, maybe not right away, but over the course of a generation or two, things will change.
What you're saying and trying to imply will not.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
You may want to check what the bible says you need to do to people preaching a different religion...
It's not like us westerners live up to our professed ideals of truth, justice and democracy either...
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Of course, we edited lots of people's cultures when we were their colonial masters, and actually instilled the killing of homosexuals into places that had historically been pretty tolerant. Social engineering often goes badly wrong.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
....Apostates and mockers. That reason is this: It is a wicked, hateful, backwards religion that is plainly so when exposed to any scrutiny. Islam's solution? To kill those who scrutinize it!
When anybody not even excuses, but merely explains rape by the victim's "slut-like" clothing or suggestive behavior, we tend to get (justly) outraged by such blame-the-victim attitude.
Why should attempts to explain murders by the nebulous "being treated like shit" by the victims be treated any different?
The cause of rape and sexual violence against women is a misogynistic culture. Clothing is not an explanation. I am all in favour of discussing modes of dress as a means of not drawing undesired attention, but that must be within a context that clearly states that it is not the woman's fault. If clothing is an "explanation" for rape, you are stating it is the cause, and if it is the cause, then you are stating it's the woman's fault. No -- it's the man's fault. I have been on beaches where women were sunbathing topless, and I didn't rape a single one of them. Surely if there's an such thing as slutty dressing that causes rape, wearing nothing but a thong and oiling your skin then spreading yourself out on the group is "asking for it"...? No.
The cause of rape is rapists. The cause of terrorism is terrorists.
But rapists are made by society, just as terrorists are made by society. Dealing with that root cause isn't about absolving the criminals of their responsibility. We can continue to jail both rapists and terrorists while simultaneously working to remove the circumstances that made them what they are.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Sure. But I was talking not about people living up to their ideals or not. My point was about the ideals themselves. Our ideals are, as you enumerated, truth, justice and democracy (among other things). Islam's ideals are truth (among the faithful — lying to infidels is perfectly fine), justice (Sharia) and theocracy (the only political order acceptable under Koran).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Touched a nerve there, didn't it?
Start with project Ajax and work your way up to the installation of Saddam Hussein if you want to educate yourself on American middle-east fuckery.
Yes to this comment!
Attacking a major religion, existentially, is not wise. There's nothing you can do to sway the believers, and the belief structures of all the major religions are quite civilized. The best religious scholars derive lessons from their sources and come up with a startlingly compatible set of rules to live by. For example:
- Do unto others as you would have done unto you;
- Let those without sin cast the first stone;
- Judge not, lest ye be judged.
There are certainly some oddball beliefs to be found in the religious texts, especially if you insist on taking every passage literally and without reference to the other passages. Context is important.
Now if you don't believe in the recommended deity, that's gonna be a problem for you. However with freedom of religion that problem is largely taken care of.
It is absolving them. Perhaps, not completely but partially. And that can not stand — however small the part. The below statements are equally false and endorsing of evil:
Yes, this may be a fine public policy. But we should not allow our understanding of what is happening in the criminal's head to prevent us from fully and unequivocally condemning him for the evil of his actions.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I will assume you're not suggesting that every reasonable person in said country should pack up and leave the country to those who work to instill such fear. Because, you know, that would be stupid.
The problem here is, as has been true for some time, religion. Specifically Islam in this case, but of course they're just the latest enthusiastic practitioners of murdering, torturing and so on in the cause of superstitious balderdash.
As long as we allow our civilized sensibilities to continue to prevent us from cutting off the head of this particular beast, it will continue to savage us.
You can "desire" to live in a civilized country all you want; but if you are unwilling or unable to weed out the uncivilized for any reason, your desire will be no more than a dream. And that is going to require some action of an extremely severe nature. Such action would not be... civilized. But the eventual result could be.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, they don't. Because with that appropriately allocated blame would come elimination. Out you go, here's a nice bit of desert, enjoy, bye, PS we confiscated all your money and possessions and redistributed it to our sane citizens. Thanks for all the rugs and books of superstition suitable for providing kindling in the colder months.
At which point they can bomb sand dunes, set each other on fire, hack each others heads off, and mutilate each others genitals until the the sun goes dead and no one would give a hoot. Quite rightly, too. What justifies this? The abject and continuous failure of the Muslim community to stop this poison at its source -- or even try: Their toxic, world-domination-oriented religion and its book of terrorist advisories.
So, no. What these "terrorists" (Islamists) actually want is just what they say they want, and just what their religion tells them to want: Sharia law, Islam everywhere, bowing in a certain direction at certain times of the day for everyone, end of story.
If you let rattlesnakes run around in your living room, someone's going to get bit. I really don't care how much sympathy you have for rattlesnakes -- and neither do the rattlesnakes. Islam is toxic. You can't fix that. Get it out of the figurative living room.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If they are so marginalize why do they keep flocking to france? Don't you get it. it is a invasion. Just like France was colonized by the Jew (They came in by introducing the Jewish sect of Jesus) after the fall of the Roman empire, they are now being colonized by Muslim. Liberte, egality fraternity; such way of life is outdated. I have no doubt that before the turn of the century most of Europe will be ruled by sharia. Islam is the way that has a future because nobody has the courage to fight it.
Europe needs to figure out how to welcome and assimilate immigrants, as the United States and Canada do, or just man up and close the borders.
The US and Canada does not assimilate immigration. the immigrants are regrouped in ethnic community and lobby the state for racial and religous privileges. These country will be ruled by sharia eventually. And closing the border is not enough, deportation will be require if any western culture is to be preserved. But "most" peoples hate western culture anyway, for it is racist, homophobic and misogynist. Unlike the tolerant and all accepting Islamic culture. LOL.
> over 6 millions Jews in the second world war
But if Muslims have a chance, they'd like to, because they hate them.
> Apartheid
Look up what it's like living as a non-Muslim in a Sharia country. Very much like Apartheid.
> slave trade
Yes, Muslims have done this.
> inquisition
one could argue that this was a result of the invasion and occupation of Spain and the pushing the invaders back out.
Have you? When, pray tell, did "blacks" fly into skyscrapers full of innocent people? When, pray tell, did "Hispanics" march into a humor magazine and shoot down the cartoonist and anyone nearby? When's the last time "blacks" blew up a night club? When's the last time Hispanics murdered everyone at a resort?
Your problem is that the political correctness butt plug has been shoved so far up your ass by the idiots who think everyone is a special butterfly that you can no longer shit, so you've simply gone blind.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The reason the internment camps were wrong -- and they were -- is because they were based upon race, not ideology. The reason political correctness is wrong in this matter is because it allows toxic and dangerous ideology to fester and continue to harm us without any meaningful attempt to hold the ideology and its followers responsible -- and in many cases, goes as far as making excuses for it.
The parts of WWII facing Japan that were entirely correct include the extreme levels of violence we pursued in response to the violent incursion and further evil-doings based on the Japanese Empire's ideologies. The most correct actions taken were at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is only a shame that it was so difficult to develop the technology that finally proved sufficient to stop that ideology in its filthy, toxic tracks.
Takei's experience has no comparable bearing here (in fact, it demonstrates the opposite of what you were trying to say... American camps were far more humane and reasonable than the Japanese, and even then we fought about them internally.) If you want to compare fairly, then read the experiences of those Americans at Pearl Harbor; Guam; in the Changi camps; and so on, and relate those experiences to the beliefs the various ideologies inculcated in the citizens of the Japanese empire, along with the entirely doctrine-compliant actions the Empire's subjects took as a direct result. Go hang out at the Arizona memorial for a while. Let's compare Apples with Apples; ideology with ideology. And then consider what is too severe an injury to society for society to allow the abuse to continue.
Just ask yourself three questions: First, were conditions at Changi, Outram Road and so on like the conditions at US internment camps? Second, did our ideology -- our constitution, the bill of rights, American ideals -- actually support the idea of the interment camps? Three, did the Japanese ideology -- the ingrained ideas of the Empire that brought us the kamikaze, drove the Japanese citizens off the cliffs at Saipan, the death march at Bataan, and declared the Japanese superior to any other race -- actually support the idea of Changi and its brethren?
The fact is that ideology can be extremely toxic. When it is, tolerating it is an extremely bad idea. What society has to do, and I readily admit this is difficult, is figure out when something is so against the grain that it is unacceptably dangerous. At that point, it is time to excise the tumor. Islam is one of these toxic ideologies. We're going to have to face it eventually. And until we do, every life lost and family destroyed should add to the load on the consciences of those who advocate separating responsibility from ideology in the face of the obvious facts.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Its funny you should bring up the slave trade. Cause the english got the general idea of enslaving africans as a race from the dutch. The dutch however got the idea from a bunch of, wait for it, arab Muslims.
When you dismiss out of hand any and every newsworthy event as a "false flag operation", that doesn't make you or the Internet any freer, friend.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So you're saying we should give Palestine back to the Romans?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.
This is pure bullshit. Are you aware what Deuteronomy *is*, and who Moses is claimed to *be*? There are plenty of sects of Christianity that absolutely take Mosaic Law, as given by Moses (God's Prophet) to be law, and are displeased that modern society allows their wives to cheat on them and live.
On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God.
This is actually only true in the same way that some Christian sects consider the old and new Testaments to be the Word as inspired by Him.
If you've read the Quran, you'd be well aware it's not the verbatim word of God any more than the other main Abrahamic books are.
Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.
You literally are a mouthpiece for right-wing Islamophobic stereotypes. This is, again, no different than the other major Abrahamic religions.
And in literally no even marginally strict Christian sect is that which is rendered unto Caesar supreme to that which is rendered unto God. ie, Biblical Supremecy, as Christians who believe in that line of thinking call it. Yes, the Bible comes with a Supremecy Clause, you just only read half of it.
Like any Abrahamic religion, how barbaric you are comes down to which verses you decide to interpret. Secular Islamic governments and societies used to be common, and still exist to a point today. There are real reasons for the cultural reset that has occurred in much of the former Caliphate territories, and guess what- it's not the religion.
I think if you look for something else that correlates with the regions with problems, you'll find that something else correlates better with the phenomenon of terrorism and religious extremism than Islam.
... this will continue. The appeasement just goes on and on.
Did you see Obama's pathetic statement about this atrocity? I wasn't sure if he was just stoned, or if he was channeling Gene Wilder in the Chocolate Factory (the quiet, calm, utterly insincere "no ... stop ... don't ... ")
But I know that you must know that I know which glass has the poison so I clearly cannot choose the wine in front of me.....
Oh Oh so what your racist ass is saying is that we should kill the nonbelievers! How would we do that? Maybe we can blow them up or just run into their buildings and randomly shoot them. Sounds like a great plan, dumbass!
You aren't going to persuade a single soul to your side by blaming the ills of the middle east solely on the US- the audience primarily reading this. No matter how much we have fucked with them, that still doesn't mean we forced them to be terrorists or blow themselves up. Two wrongs not making a right and all that.
The conditions of which Shakrai speaks exist, and not only in France.
Ignoring them will not make them go away. Looking for imagined/potential offence in attempts to discuss them is also not a productive undertaking.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Self-censorship in response to threats is not appeasement
Not in this case !
Did the media (no matter it's CNN or NYT or whateverfuck) received direct threats against them?
Did someone specifically send threatening message / letters to those media outlet this time?
Yes or no ?
The whole issue of 'threats' do not exist, in fact, the 'threats' are all 'self-imposed'
It's the motherfucking Western liberal media who are using 'threats' as a cover to NOT publishing the cartoons
It's the motherfucking Western liberal media who have cop out !
GP was right all along. The entire thing smells more like APPEASEMENT than the non-existent threats
Correct: the actions of the US and other Western nations do not justify suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. Bombings and mass shootings are wrong no matter the reason. The perpetrators of such crimes should be brought to justice, and the planners of such crimes found and stopped.
But the actions of the US and other Western nations do explain suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. We're still doing the same overbearing imperialist shit to this day. So we should not be surprised when the same action leads to the same result, and we have to spend more resources chasing down the future perpetrators of future terrible crimes.
Alternately we can tone down our bull headed strategy of resource-grab and drone-strike, and ramp up a kinder strategy of raising up the least of us. Draining the pool of desperate brainwashed youth will prevent terrorist attacks much better than bullets ever can.
So let me guess - you're telling me you know about the religion of Islam? You have actual education, or have taken a class at an accredited institution, as to the beliefs of Islam?
I have, and Islam teaches no such things. It's just nothing but War-on-Terror-induced propaganda that media companies are making tons of money off of. Why don't you read a few books here and there rather than for "eradication", ironically violating your own self-professed principle of free speech (TM)?
Christianity mandates killing disobedient children in the New Testament (since many throw out the OT), but civilized Christians have conveniently forgotten about that part of the Bible. Similarly, civilized Muslims have dropped the nasty parts of their religion as well.
Do you know how to make immigrants integrate into your culture and become more like you? Welcome them instead of ostracizing them. Show them that your way is better rather than just yelling at them that they're wrong (which I'm pretty sure has never worked in the history of mankind).
You make some sound points there, but unlike perhaps Christianity, Islam has a sound, intact tradition which is both aural and textual.
If an individual takes certain passages out of the Qur'an and decides to interpret them according to his/her own opinion, rather than according to sound evidence as known by a proper chain of narration, that individual would be classified as deviant. It's happened before, throughout the centuries, and Islamic scholars have always been there to refute the extremists. (Even now Islamic scholars are second to none in condemning ISIS and these murderous attacks, but you'll never hear about that in the media - wonder why.)
http://www.reuters.com/article...
Sure. But I was talking not about people living up to their ideals or not. My point was about the ideals themselves. Our ideals are, as you enumerated, truth, justice and democracy (among other things). Islam's ideals are truth (among the faithful — lying to infidels is perfectly fine), justice (Sharia) and theocracy (the only political order acceptable under Koran).
The meaning of theocracy is debated by scholars of all religions, and the majority view is that theocracy is obtained when individuals live answerable to god. The Catholic church foreswore direct political power at the end of the Holy Roman Empire, and most Muslims reject both the Iranian model of Ayatollahs and the IS notion of an Islamic caliphate in recognition of the corruptibility of humans, particularly those in positions of power. Theocracy is not, therefore, a political order. In fact, true theocracy would be easier to achieve under a democratic political system than a totalitarian one (if a god exists -- I do not personally believe in any) as it is less prone to corruption (but still open to plenty of corruption, as proven every day).
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
"Freedom of speech". Few words, lots of meaning.
In my cheese's eaters country, this words imply that anyone can have / express any opinions, till their expression doesn't directly harm anyone else.
No one, in my country, could force anyone (muslims, jews, etc.) to read (and buy...) any newspaper.
Charlie has opinions and publishes them freely, it's a normal thing.
No one can decide which opinion anyone else should have, it's also a normal thing.
The murders are trying to force a prohibition on our society, on their sole purpose. They want impose which opinion should be allowed or not.
I'm surprised to see that this simple freedom principle isn't admitted in U.S.
I'll just buy the next Charlie's numero, even if i'm not on their ideological side. They can kill journalists, but the ideas and opinions can't be killed.
A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandates killing people for certain speech...
This is why youre racist.
- Its not imcompatible, as shown by the millions of peacefully coexisting Muslims already here and in Europe.
- Not to mention that not every Muslim majority nation is Suadi Arabia. There are 49 Muslim majority countries. To paint all of them by the example of SA is the definition of bigotry, as even within the Muslim world, restrictive nations like SA are the exception and not the norm, even though its the example people like like to trot out as the example of "how muslims are".
-BTW, using a couple cherry picked unrepresentative examples to paint an entire culture wrongly, is the definition of of bigotry.
-If you truly believed that you would ceaselessly mock Christiantity as well, yet you dont. You cherry pick from their religious book while ignoring any other passage in it that might contract the passage youve chosen. Again: the defintion of bigotry.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Mod this up.
Mi posts almost nothing but racist/sexist filth that fell out the southend of a northbound mule, which is likely his own origin as well.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
the slavery trade
You utter ignorant fuckwit.
http://english.alarabiya.net/e...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
There's a pretty easy answer though. Stop letting so many fucking people into the country.
Shit, even 1st generation immigrants in the UK are actually stating that they think immigration is too high and it's damaging their quality of life.
That doesn't cause radicalisation and reducing immigration wont cause more radicalisation than the majority are already undergoing in response to the immigration problems.
Before I read the rest of your rant, show me, where I am saying anything about a particular race in this thread.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Freedom of the press, is the freedom of choice. Print or don't print, that is the whole idea. If on the other side of the coin they feel forced to print something they would rather not, that is not very good either.
Here in Canada it is a bit interesting as most of the Francophone media is printing it, while most of the Anglophone media is not. Sort of highlights some interesting cultural differences within our own country.
At least some Christians are of the opinion that God and the Bible tell them how to live, and that means accepting secular power structures. Jesus told people to pay their taxes, and he also told them that money is ultimately worthless, and the only lasting reward is from obeying God. The Biblical supremacy clause works just fine with a halfway reasonable non-religious government.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
But we should not allow our understanding of what is happening in the criminal's head to prevent us from fully and unequivocally condemning him for the evil of his actions.
I don't have a problem with "unequivocally". I am unequivocal when I say it is a horrendous act with no legitimate excuse. But if we blame them fully, then we are condemning ourselves to history repeating itself. Remember the words of John Donne's poem:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
Society exists, and we are molded by the society we grow up in. We can choose to continue to be the type of society that creates these problems, or we can try to be a different type of society.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Imperialism is not the same thing as playing the "great game".
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. How can we fix/educate/civilize/rationalize them?
Casteism
Govt must mandate that everbody should endorse 2 religions.
Casteism
Well stoning adulterers is part of Mosaic Law and Sharia law but is not part of Christianity. In fact there was a very specific prohibition against this as one of the most famous words of Christ: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So anyone who would do something like that could not claim this as a Christian mandate since Jesus specifically prohibited it. I can't say this was not done at one time, but it was certainly not Christian. In fact if you've read the "Scarlet Letter", adulterers were certainly not approved of but they were not executed. This is largely conflating Muslim Sharia law and Christian beliefs.
Jesus Christ brought a new Covenant which wiped away the old Mosaic Law. So there was never a need to "Edit" Christianity since things like stoning adulterers, burning witches, killing homosexuals were never allowed for Christian's in the first place if they follow what Christ and the Apostles taught. The Catholic Church added many things to the practice of Christianity that weren't in the Bible, but I don't think the three items you mentioned were ever part of official church or even Catholic Canon law. That was why things like the burning of witches in Salem was a short lived anomaly. Although there were many abuses and extra-Biblical practices of the Church such as the Inquisition which was implemented by churches in some countries in the 12th to 18th centuries.
Interestingly enough, since you mention burning witches, the Saudi's are still performing executions for witchcraft as late as 2012 (even though the result is the same, at least beheading is a quicker death than burning): Saudi man executed for 'witchcraft and sorcery'
But I do agree with your post though. The only way that there will be true compatibility with Western values is the elimination of Sharia Law and political Islam everywhere.
Je Suis Charlie. Pass it on.
--- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.