Acts of Terrorism megathread

[Duque de Bragança]

Not understanding my being quoted in there duque. But brigade?

Rushdie reference. In a reference to a lecture given in January 2015 at the university of Vermont.
https://video.unctv.org/video/vermont-public-television-specials-salman-rushdie-vermont/

Around 55'30"

[Josquius]

Not understanding my being quoted in there duque. But brigade?

Rushdie reference. In a reference to a lecture given in January 2015 at the university of Vermont.
https://video.unctv.org/video/vermont-public-television-specials-salman-rushdie-vermont/

Around 55'30"

Oh, then yes, very much part of this.
Words have power and they can be misused towards ends like this recent murder and far worse.
Trying to present it as a simple black and white pro free speech and against free speech is pretty naiive, especially in the 21st century.

[Duque de Bragança]

Not understanding my being quoted in there duque. But brigade?

Rushdie reference. In a reference to a lecture given in January 2015 at the university of Vermont.
https://video.unctv.org/video/vermont-public-television-specials-salman-rushdie-vermont/

Around 55'30"

Oh, then yes, very much part of this.
Words have power and they can be misused towards ends like this recent murder and far worse.
Trying to present it as a simple black and white pro free speech and against free speech is pretty naiive, especially in the 21st century.

So in theory you agree with Rushdie, yet in practice you are still part of the ™But-Brigade™. 

"If you are a writer, it's kind of like if you're a composer, you would have an orchestra to compose for, and sometimes you write more for the strings and sometimes more for the keyboard, and you don't have to write for the same  thing every time you compose. In the same way when you're writing, you don't always write for the same part of the orchestra. And so satire is one of the tools and it's a very important one. And actually  in the history of France, it's been enormously important ever since the French Revolution. Some of the first really powerful satirical pieces in the French history were fuilleton, the sheet that was distributed in the street, attacking Marie Antoinette after she encouraged people to eat cake, which was very bad for their health. So there was a kind of early gluten-free satire at that time.

"The French satirical tradition has always been very pointed and very harsh. And still is, you know. And the thing that I really resent is the way in which these, our dead comrades, these people who died— using the same implement that I use, which is the pen or a pencil—have been almost immediately vilified and called racists and I don't know what else. Which is a dreadful crime against their memory.

"And I didn't know them well, but I met Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdot—[a person]less racist than whom it would be hard to find. For starters, I mean, there might be other things wrong with him: He was a communist; he was a communist member of the far left in France and to describe him as a rightwinger is a bizarre description.

"But you know Charlie Hebdot attacked everything. It attacked Muslims, the pope, it attacked Israel and rabbis, it attacked black people and white people, and gay people and straight people. It attacked every kind of human being. It was what? It was making fun. Its strategy was to make fun of people. And it was seen as that. It was seen as that. It was very beloved. Its cartoons were very beloved in France. [Slain cartoonist] Wolinski, the  old gentleman of 87 years old, he was a grand old man of French culture.

"So anyway, the thing that I come to—I used this phrase on TV the other day— the rise of the 'but-brigade.' I got so sick of the goddamn but-brigade.  And now the moment somebody says 'Yes I believe in free speech, but,' I stop listening. 'I believe in free speech, but people should behave themselves.' 'I believe in free speech, but we shouldn't upset anybody.' 'I believe in free speech, but let's not go too far.'

"The point about it is, the moment you limit free speech, it's not free speech. The point about it is that it's free. Both John F. Kennedy and Nelson Mandela, in important speeches, used the same three-word phrase which to my mind says it all: "Freedom is indivisible." You can't slice it up. Otherwise it ceases to be freedom.

"And you can dislike Charlie Hebdo. You know, not all their drawings are funny. You can dislike, but the fact that you dislike them has got nothing to do with their right to speak. The fact that you dislike them certainly doesn't in any way excuse their murder. And the idea that  within days of this murder, sections of the left as well as the right have turned against these, these fallen artists to vilify them is, I think, disgraceful. The end."

[Valmy]

Trying to present it as a simple black and white pro free speech and against free speech is pretty naiive, especially in the 21st century.

Murdering people is a morally gray act in your eyes?

What about persecuting apostates? Is that also something that would be naive to think is wrong?

How much persecution and violence towards people for thought crimes is acceptable in the 21st century?

[Josquius]

So in theory you agree with Rushdie, yet in practice you are still part of the ™But-Brigade™. 

eh?

As to the quote, don't confuse natural freedom and civilized freedom. If I had complete natural freedom then I would be free to murder whoever I like. Civilization is built around controlling these freedoms for everyone's benefit.

Murdering people is a morally gray act in your eyes?

What about persecuting apostates? Is that also something that would be naive to think is wrong?

No?
I said nothing like this?

How much persecution and violence towards people for thought crimes is acceptable in the 21st century?

Its not murder. Nobody would ever claim its remotely comparable. But prison sentences for hate preaching should definitely be an option.

[Valmy]

Its not murder. Nobody would ever claim its remotely comparable. But prison sentences for hate preaching should definitely be an option.

They could be. Depending on the definition of hate speech. Giving something for cultists and religious extremists to use to throw their critics into prison is not something I support. Hatred of people and criticizing ideas are not the same thing.

[Duque de Bragança]

So in theory you agree with Rushdie, yet in practice you are still part of the ™But-Brigade™. 

eh?

As to the quote, don't confuse natural freedom and civilized freedom. If I had complete natural freedom then I would be free to murder whoever I like. Civilization is built around controlling these freedoms for everyone's benefit.

Apples and oranges sophistry attempt. In this instance, you are drawing a parallel between publishing or showing cartoons for discussion in class on one hand, and murder and the other hand.

[Josquius]

Apples and oranges sophistry attempt. In this instance, you are drawing a parallel between publishing or showing cartoons for discussion in class on one hand, and murder and the other hand.

Petty theft, kicking someone in the balls, driving on the wrong side of the road, hiding in a stranger's cupboard, etc....
The murder isn't necessary for the comparison.
Laws by their very nature take away freedom to give greater freedom.
If we can hold liable those who would use convincing arguments to demand people who create cartoon they don't like are killed then that's for the good of us all.

Its not murder. Nobody would ever claim its remotely comparable. But prison sentences for hate preaching should definitely be an option.

They could be. Depending on the definition of hate speech. Giving something for cultists and religious extremists to use to throw their critics into prison is not something I support. Hatred of people and criticizing ideas are not the same thing.

So those people who have been arrested over this recent murder should be released?

[Valmy]

So those people who have been arrested over this recent murder should be released?

Depends. What was their involvement with the murders?

[Duque de Bragança]

Apples and oranges sophistry attempt. In this instance, you are drawing a parallel between publishing or showing cartoons for discussion in class on one hand, and murder and the other hand.

Petty theft, kicking someone in the balls, driving on the wrong side of the road, hiding in a stranger's cupboard, etc....
The murder isn't necessary for the comparison.
Laws by their very nature take away freedom to give greater freedom.
If we can hold liable those who would use convincing arguments to demand people who create cartoon they don't like are killed then that's for the good of us all.

More and more apples and oranges.
If you disagree with Rushdie, fine, just don't pretend to agree with him.
You're just a ™But-brigade™ trooper invoking an irrelevant specious legal argument.

The murderer victim was was a History-Geography and civic education teacher who dealt with freedom of speech in class, discussing the cartoons, reprinted by Charlie Hebdo, a well-known leftist weekly, themselves staunch believers of freedom of speech; whose liberty to do so was precisely advocated by Rushdie.

[Josquius]

Apples and oranges sophistry attempt. In this instance, you are drawing a parallel between publishing or showing cartoons for discussion in class on one hand, and murder and the other hand.

Petty theft, kicking someone in the balls, driving on the wrong side of the road, hiding in a stranger's cupboard, etc....
The murder isn't necessary for the comparison.
Laws by their very nature take away freedom to give greater freedom.
If we can hold liable those who would use convincing arguments to demand people who create cartoon they don't like are killed then that's for the good of us all.

More and more apples and oranges.
If you disagree with Rushdie, fine, just don't pretend to agree with him.
You're just a ™But-brigade™ trooper invoking an irrelevant specious legal argument.

The murderer victim was was a History-Geography and civic education teacher who dealt with freedom of speech in class, discussing the cartoons, reprinted by Charlie Hebdo, a well-known leftist weekly, themselves staunch believers of freedom of speech; whose liberty to do so was precisely advocated by Rushdie.

I never said I agree with him?
I'm very much in the "but brigade". Only sith deal in absolutes and all that. Its a completely valid argument that absolute freedom is not freedom at all. Many far smarter folks than myself have examined this.

Don't forget that it is free speech behind those who said he should be murdered just as much as the reason they targeted him.

[Duque de Bragança]

Apples and oranges sophistry attempt. In this instance, you are drawing a parallel between publishing or showing cartoons for discussion in class on one hand, and murder and the other hand.

Petty theft, kicking someone in the balls, driving on the wrong side of the road, hiding in a stranger's cupboard, etc....
The murder isn't necessary for the comparison.
Laws by their very nature take away freedom to give greater freedom.
If we can hold liable those who would use convincing arguments to demand people who create cartoon they don't like are killed then that's for the good of us all.

More and more apples and oranges.
If you disagree with Rushdie, fine, just don't pretend to agree with him.
You're just a ™But-brigade™ trooper invoking an irrelevant specious legal argument.

The murderer victim was was a History-Geography and civic education teacher who dealt with freedom of speech in class, discussing the cartoons, reprinted by Charlie Hebdo, a well-known leftist weekly, themselves staunch believers of freedom of speech; whose liberty to do so was precisely advocated by Rushdie.

I never said I agree with him?
I'm very much in the "but brigade". Only sith deal in absolutes and all that. Its a completely valid argument that absolute freedom is not freedom at all. Many far smarter folks than myself have examined this.

Don't forget that it is free speech behind those who said he should be murdered just as much as the reason they targeted him.

I'm glad you could admit being a part of the ™But-Brigade™ since it was not exactly clear in the beginning with your ignorant references to nebulous far-right concepts, including "islamic far-right" (sic) while dealing with a satyrical leftist weekly publication.

Not understanding my being quoted in there duque. But brigade?

Rushdie reference. In a reference to a lecture given in January 2015 at the university of Vermont.
https://video.unctv.org/video/vermont-public-television-specials-salman-rushdie-vermont/

Around 55'30"

Oh, then yes, very much part of this.
Words have power and they can be misused towards ends like this recent murder and far worse.
Trying to present it as a simple black and white pro free speech and against free speech is pretty naiive, especially in the 21st century.

and

A big part of the problem is not so much the cartoons themselves but the way people who absolutely don't believe in free speech have seized on them as a stick to bash Muslims with. The whole draw Muhammed day thing and all the trolling designed just to wind Muslims up. This angle on things is really keeping this issue alive and ensuring hate constantly begets hate.

[Josquius]

I never said Charlie hebdo was far right.
I'm really confused at your point here. And said from the start you could clump me into the rational thinker brigade against silly absolutism.

[Duque de Bragança]

I never said Charlie hebdo was far right.
I'm really confused at your point here.

You implied it since in your extremely ignorant view of any loosely-defined criticism of islam can only come from a very loosely-defined far-right, then backtracked a bit when Yi and others showed you examples of their publications.
Not to mention the murdered teacher...

A big part of the problem is not so much the cartoons themselves but the way people who absolutely don't believe in free speech have seized on them as a stick to bash Muslims with. The whole draw Muhammed day thing and all the trolling designed just to wind Muslims up. This angle on things is really keeping this issue alive and ensuring hate constantly begets hate.

Chillax, you are now a proud member of the ™But-Brigade™ so the discussion is over. Move on.

[Josquius]

You may need to improve your English a spot.
I specifically said the cartoons weren't the problem, it was those who don't believe in free speech who seek to use them for their own needs.

And sure. The side of nuance and giving things thought rather than just tarring everything with the same brush is the parochial one

I haven't back tracked one jot here. I hold to what I say. Its a lot more complicated than free speech against the baddies who want to control speech.