11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[CountDeMoney]

Good grief, Charlie 11B.

[11B4V]

Good grief, Charlie 11B.

Call it like I see it

CH was stupid and it cost lives.

[CountDeMoney]

That's like saying we deserved 9/11 because of our relationship with Israel.  Shame on you, Mr. Sworn To Defend The Constitution.

[Razgovory]

Why is this concept so hard to understand?  "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it"  I thought of it as basic concept in Western liberalism.

[11B4V]

That's like saying we deserved 9/11 because of our relationship with Israel.  Shame on you, Mr. Sworn To Defend The Constitution.

CH has direct culpability in those people getting killed. Those that worked for them. The hostages later on, and the police defending their right.

Have a white person print this on a t-shirt and wear it in a predominatly black urban neighborhood.


1. Do they have the right to wear this? yes

2. Does that person have a right to think this way? yes

3. Do they have the right to voice their beliefs? yes

4. Will they get their ass beat? probably

5. Would they get killed? maybe

6. Does excersing numbers 1, 2, or 3 mean you should be beat-up and/or killed? No, because you are excersing your right.

Just because you have the right to say it, doesn't mean you should say it. You can, sure, it is your right and there may be consequences wrongly for it.

[Admiral Yi]

... yes?

His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).

I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.

Is this confusing?

I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.

So we have two separate ideas in this tweet.  One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam.  Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim.  So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make?  What is the relationship between these two ideas?

[11B4V]

Why is this concept so hard to understand? "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it"  I thought of it as basic concept in Western liberalism.

I don't think, this is being disputed. At least not by me.

[11B4V]

Good grief, Charlie 11B.

If you don't know my position on the CH episode, I could spell it out for you. 

[Jacob]

I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.

So we have two separate ideas in this tweet.  One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam.  Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim.  So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make?  What is the relationship between these two ideas?

My original answer still stands: of the people who were victimized by the radical Islamicist terrorists, he identifies more with the Muslim victim who was acting on behalf of French society (so not as an alien interloper or fifth columnist enemy), rather than those victims who mocked and ridiculed him and his culture.

This to me seems a reasonable enough point on its own. Are you seeing something else in the relationship between the two statements?

[Razgovory]

Why is this concept so hard to understand? "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it"  I thought of it as basic concept in Western liberalism.

I don't think, this is being disputed. At least not by me.

No, not by you.

[CountDeMoney]

Are you seeing something else in the relationship between the two statements?

I think he's been grading too many tests lately.

[jimmy olsen]

Why is this concept so hard to understand?  "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it"  I thought of it as basic concept in Western liberalism.

Yup, very simple. It's nothing but full support for the western liberal paradigm.

[Admiral Yi]

My original answer still stands: of the people who were victimized by the radical Islamicist terrorists, he identifies more with the Muslim victim who was acting on behalf of French society (so not as an alien interloper or fifth columnist enemy), rather than those victims who mocked and ridiculed him and his culture.

This to me seems a reasonable enough point on its own. Are you seeing something else in the relationship between the two statements?

I think there's a considerable amount of ambiguity.

My first read on it was, not only does he find CH's content offensive, but they and their supporters should feel even worse because a Muslim died defending them.

It could also mean he only cares about dead Muslims and is indifferent to dead nonbelievers.

It could mean he finds the cartoons offensive but supports the values and laws of the French state, as embodied by the dead policeman.

It could mean he thinks the policeman was a patsy for defending people who insulted him.

As an aside, did CH in fact "mock and ridicule" Islam?  I thought they got in trouble for mocking ISIS.

[dps]

... yes?

His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).

I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.

Is this confusing?

I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.

So we have two separate ideas in this tweet.  One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam.  Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim.  So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make?  What is the relationship between these two ideas?

Damn, are you really that dense?  Read the quote in Raz's post:  ""I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it". 

Dead Muslim cop didn't agree with what Charlie said, but defended to his death (literally) the magazine's right to say it.

[11B4V]

... yes?

His statement has several parts. The first part says he does not identify with with Charlie Hebdo. Later he states that Charlie Hebdo mocked his culture and faith, which is a straight up statement of fact (and not one I believe is controversial).

I think it's reasonable to infer that the statement of fact he provides is the reason for how he identifies, given it's in the same statement and all.

Is this confusing?

I was confused before but now I understand what you're saying.

So we have two separate ideas in this tweet.  One, he objects to CH's treatment of Islam.  Two, one of the dead cops was Muslim.  So I repeat my original question: what's the point he's trying to make?  What is the relationship between these two ideas?

Damn, are you really that dense?  Read the quote in Raz's post:  ""I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it". 

Dead Muslim cop didn't agree with what Charlie said, but defended to his death (literally) the magazine's right to say it.

Raz shoots and scores with that one.