Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Secondly: I imagine this will be absolutely fine with everyone.
I'm reading a book in French for the first time at the moment (because I'm clever and you're all as thick as Barry White's turd on Boxing Day)...and just this morning it mentioned Charlie Hebdo...which I subsequently had to google...JUST THIS MORNING!!
I forget the name, where you will encounter a topic that you've never encountered before, then subsequently encounter it repeatedly in other situations shortly afterward.
but now I've read it four times. Insane.
Thought Baader-Meinhoff was where you fell in love with the German terrorists holding you hostage. Or are they Swedish?
The falling in love with hostage-takers thing is Stockholm Syndrome.
'The publication's editor-in-chief and cartoonist Charb said they were not trying to be especially provocative.'
No not provocative at all.
Also their website was hacked. It would seem someone objected to the editorial decisions Muhammad has been making.
All very well being the mouthpiece of Allah, but the lack of any formal training was bound to show through. Apparently Muhammad is on four months' unpaid leave, and Charb's sent him to do a journalism course at Columbia.
That went down well then.
I mean black metal and islamic nutjobs have a lot in common, such as burning things and murders and such.
I'm not volunteering for this though.
did they want to get burnt down (see also Julian Assange and Salman Rushdie)
then yeah, why not? could be, what would you expect if you did that sort of thing?
maybe not insurance, but maybe their sales needed a boost and what better way to boost publicity than to do something like this, makes the mag edgier
did they not imagine the consequences?
Bit like homophobia it doesn't popularly even mean 'scared' despite the literal meaning of the word soooooo
Obviously there's bigotry involved on one level, but on the other I think people should be allowed to take the piss out of religions/political groupings/everyone and anything.
by fucking loonies, be they muslim loonies or loonies pretending to be muslim loonies so the muslim loonies look even worse.
people take the piss because they find your belief stupid. Deal with that through ignoring it, arguing with it, boycotting it, not by acting in such an extreme way that you end up partly justifying the piss take in the first place...
rights or wrongs, there are often extreme elements that will do this (on all sides of arguments).....the question to ask yourself is 'Is this a suprising result?' or would you kind of expect it? If you expect it, then irrespective of your rights n stuff, you do have a tiny piece of responsibility for the consequences...Im not saying that it diminishes the responsibility of the act from those that carry out the act.
this is a different issue, and does not concern 'basic human rights'....yes yes freedom of speech is a human right.......however, having a platform from which you can throw (what you KNOW) will be an incendiary brickbat at hardliners.....i.e. your 'speech' WILL get accessed by thousands and thousands.....this is sort of a bit of a privilage.
Let me put it another way.....suppose some journalist put out something (that he didnt have to) and it was something that everyone knows will alert extremists and has a possibility of violence and retribution.....do you not think that if his kids got threatened or hurt as a result, that his wife might actuially lay a little of the blame on the journalist himself.
What I said was 'I am not suggesting it should lessen the responsibility of those that carry out the act' perhaps you didn't notice that. I said 'a tiny bit of responsibility' ...let me put it in a more scientific representation for you so you can understand more clearly..................if you believe that doing (a) has a 70% chance of causing (b) and you don't have to do (a) (although you are perfectly in your rights to do so) and you do do (a) and then (b) happens, then yes....the person who does (a) is partially responsible for (b) happening.
Now the above method can be applied to this situation......however the above method cannot be applied to a woman who goes out on the town, she does not 'believe' any particular percentage that she will be hurt.
Publications on the other hand have EDITORS who determine the impact of their copy (for legal fallout if nothing else).
Please try to be more adult. You cannot beat me in a logical argument, give it up......oh hang on you normally do don't you. ;)
I can see your point here, but there is a missing factor as far as I can tell – the sense that some people, satirists, ant-theists etc, feel that their actions are necessary in order to rebalance the extent to which religious extremists are taken seriously/have influence on the public discourse.
Of course, this doesn't mean that you take NO responsibility for your actions, but you can't get into a situation where you don't act in a way you deem necessary because of the chance that you will have wildly disproportionate retribution brought upon you.
Speaking out against a violent dictator, for example, should you stay silent about a regime because they may act in the very way you are opposing (i.e. violent and dictatorial?) - to protestors getting shot have to consider themselves partly to blame?
hurt upon themselves are to be admired for their stance.....in fact because they take the responsibility on themselves it makes them more admirable.....but they must measure the likely consequences against what it achieves (in this they owe responsibility to themselves)
People who do say what they think despite the potentially overkill response they might get, tend to be more effective when they are within a repressive regime and are speaking out against it.....if you are instead speaking out in a regime that totally encourages it and you instead just p*** off some extremists who think their cultural homeland is some other regime, then the worth of what you achieve might be considerably less.....which is why i think that the jounalists involved ....Do have a responsibility against what they will achieve vs what the possible likley violent outcome might do to themselves...or their colleagues or their loved ones, or indeed caretakers/cleaners/receptionists at the premises.....they owe no responsibility to those outside of these people....but their responsibility should be of a higher considered degree, because they are (after all) probably clever people who are able to forsee and predict and reflect on such things
says to you 'chicken! you are only not going to do that because you dont want these to overeact' doesnt mean that you have to follow it....of course it then gets confuising and you dont know whether you would not be doing it cos you is scared or whether its just rational deliberation....so sometimes you have to show yourself that you arn't scared.
In this particular case i am cynically wondering if they thought that doing this would prove to the public/readership that they were 'fearless' and that any fallout could be contained with insurance so they wouldnt lose anything (premises equipment temporary loss of circulation) but overall their rep is enhanced........just wondering you know.
their scope of action/decision making is probably much narrower, as afforded to them by their mental/emotional states.
In this life I have come to expect a higher standard from satirists than I have of dogmatic extremist theism.
I must try to remember this and try to make it snappier.
My point was more that there should be differentiation between discrimination and pisstaking.
on the once hand you actually seem to have taken the bait and are calling me out on that...
on the other I just can't decide which of many many potentially infuriating things to come back with. :(
to lob a petrol bomb through a window. Only takes one lone spadger, dunnit...Was probably just a #bitneedy and felt like getting "Dans les actualites" innit.
when are you next playing btw?
special pure harsh wall noise set set since I'm supporting French HNW legend VOMIR! + other wall noise peoples. (ie it will be super intense/nihilistic/boring depending on how you feel about unchanging walls of static)
admitted as "Cementum Entail" #autocorrect.
We will be called "Britis Gash".
Could you pop a reserved ticket on that next time you visit HQ?