terrorist attack in Paris

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, it's obviously an act of solidarity. I don't understand why you're busy trying to make various semantic distinctions. I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.The cartoons against Muslims are the cartoons that elicited threats of violence and that eventually led to the murders. The cartoons about the Pope didn't lead to mass murder. So solidarity is going to involve cartoons about Islam and not about the Pope. Republishing the cartoons is not about defying the Pope, it's about defying Muslim radicals.

Why should the Pope be insulted all over again because some Muslims killed the cartoonists? I don't get that logic.

As for the Larry Flint thing. As you said, those photos were X-rated (like your Trinity example) -- as opposed to the CH cartoons, which I agree were bigotted stereotypes, but the dozen or so I saw were not x-rated. Are you arguing that the Post should take up posting Xrated photos, in order to ensure equality of acts of solidarity?

Also, Flint was killed by a loner. The lone killer is dead, and he can no longer intimidate anybody or be discouraged by mass publication of the offensive photos. Whereas, the threat against freedom of speech in those cartoons continues.

And.... now it's somebody else's turn to call you "butthurt." What's with the childish grumbling about offending "someone other than Muslims"? Really, grow up. Also, that's not even correct. CH publishes lots of cartoons aimed at Christians, Jews, and many others. Heck, it's open season on Catholics every day here at DCUM, with constant quips from one poster in particular about how every single priest wants to screw kids - yet you're completely unbothered by that, apparently. (Why? Oh, who cares. Carry on ignoring the people who are just as scatological about Wiccans and Catholics every day on your own website.)

You just made my point. Why should the Pope be insulted all over again? He is innocent. You ignore that every single Muslim American is also innocent in this instance. Yet, you are just fine with them being insulted. What a great demonstration of the double standard that is causing me to be -- yes -- butthurt. I'm getting more butthurt by the minute.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now maybe we can move on. Perhaps you can address my earlier post asking why you said Muslima's quote made a good point - but you ignored one of its key themes, which is that the journalists should have been smart enough to cave in to threats of violence. And whether the point of the cartoons was not to deliberately insult people, but rather to defy those who are threatening violence.

I disagree that journalists should have caved into the threats of violence. I also disagree that threats of violence should be countered by lifting normal content guidelines. If a newspaper wouldn't have published one of the cartoons last week, it shouldn't publish one of them this week. It is wrong to let people with guns change your behavior one way or the other.

I think you're saying that we should let the police do their work, and be done with it. I also feel that this is a position of convenience for you. I feel like you'd totally change your mind if there were a hilarious cartoon involving the Trinity and homosexuals to be published. Maybe I'm wrong.

Finding and incarcerating the killers in no way stops the threat to CH. Without support from other journalists, CH is exposed again. CH is out there again as one of the few journals challenging threats involving cartoons. Unless CH caves too, which might well happen in the absense of support from other journals and journalists. Perhaps you think CH should never have published the cartoons in the first place, which is a defensible position, but now that CH went there, to me caving has become like paying ransom for hostages.

So why shouldn't people use any other non-violent means of protest that are available to them? Sure, other journalists are writing exposes about al Qaeda and ISIS, but nobody was ever killed over an expose. People are being killed over cartoons, so cartoons are point the where other journalists can lend non-violent support.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

I don't need to be told to calm down. I'm very calm. It's condescending and unwarranted.

I apologize. I should have said, "Don't be so sensitive."

Not sensitive either. If you read my other comments in this thread, you'll see I'm quite rational. I noted an apparent contradiction in your statements. That implies nothing about my emotional state. I do object to men frequently characterizing women who disagree with them as needing to "calm down" or being "too sensitive", though. I don't know if you personally do that regularly or not, but I'll note it when I see it.

You are not doing a particularly good job of demonstrating your lack of sensitivity. By the way, I had no idea whether you are male or female and actually had assumed you were male. Had I known you were female, I would have told you to shut up and make me a sandwich (joking, joking, joking, I swear I am joking). A need to be calm and less sensitive is not something that I attribute to one sex over the other. Members of both sexes can stand to do both.

OK, I get pissed at Jeff too, but this is funny

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, it's obviously an act of solidarity. I don't understand why you're busy trying to make various semantic distinctions. I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.The cartoons against Muslims are the cartoons that elicited threats of violence and that eventually led to the murders. The cartoons about the Pope didn't lead to mass murder. So solidarity is going to involve cartoons about Islam and not about the Pope. Republishing the cartoons is not about defying the Pope, it's about defying Muslim radicals.

Why should the Pope be insulted all over again because some Muslims killed the cartoonists? I don't get that logic.

As for the Larry Flint thing. As you said, those photos were X-rated (like your Trinity example) -- as opposed to the CH cartoons, which I agree were bigotted stereotypes, but the dozen or so I saw were not x-rated. Are you arguing that the Post should take up posting Xrated photos, in order to ensure equality of acts of solidarity?

Also, Flint was killed by a loner. The lone killer is dead, and he can no longer intimidate anybody or be discouraged by mass publication of the offensive photos. Whereas, the threat against freedom of speech in those cartoons continues.

And.... now it's somebody else's turn to call you "butthurt." What's with the childish grumbling about offending "someone other than Muslims"? Really, grow up. Also, that's not even correct. CH publishes lots of cartoons aimed at Christians, Jews, and many others. Heck, it's open season on Catholics every day here at DCUM, with constant quips from one poster in particular about how every single priest wants to screw kids - yet you're completely unbothered by that, apparently. (Why? Oh, who cares. Carry on ignoring the people who are just as scatological about Wiccans and Catholics every day on your own website.)

You just made my point. Why should the Pope be insulted all over again? He is innocent. You ignore that every single Muslim American is also innocent in this instance. Yet, you are just fine with them being insulted. What a great demonstration of the double standard that is causing me to be -- yes -- butthurt. I'm getting more butthurt by the minute.

OK, good point about the insults. Nobody should be insulted in a mean-spirited way. So, how about my points re the open season on Catholics and Wiccans here at DCUM? Why aren't you butthurt on behalf of DCUM's Catholics and Wiccans? You're even in a position to do something about it. (Again, I'm not Catholic or Wiccan.)

[Anonymous]

According to the French press, many French people in social media are volunteering to accompany people using public transportation who might be afraid of being harassed due to their appearance (eg wearing a headscarf). # voyageavecmoi ("travel with me")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They will publish one million copies of Charlie Hebdo next week, instead of the usual 60,000 copies.
It would be great if there were a way to pre-purchase them online. Some of us can have friends buy them for us but I imagine lots of people across the world would like to buy one and have it sent to them.

I forgot to mention that all proceeds from next week's sale will be distributed to the families of the victims.
Meanwhile, the Guardian has pledged $150k to keep Charlie Hebdo going, and Google has pledged $300k. Three of the biggest french media outlets have also pledged assistance with "all their resources" to keep the magazine going.

Vive la Liberte d'Expression!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
OK, good point about the insults. Nobody should be insulted in a mean-spirited way. So, how about my points re the open season on Catholics and Wiccans here at DCUM? Why aren't you butthurt on behalf of DCUM's Catholics and Wiccans? You're even in a position to do something about it. (Again, I'm not Catholic or Wiccan.)

I have repeatedly asked for posters to use the "report" button to let me know about anti-Catholic posts. They almost never get reported. I have not read the Wiccan thread and there have been no messages from that thread reported. I can't do anything about posts of which I am unaware. I want to make one distinction between Islam and Catholicism. There is a Catholic Church with a structure and hierarchy and so on. I consider criticism of that institution to be fair game (unless the criticism has no basis in reality). There is not a similar institution within Islam. Therefore, criticism tends to target an amorphous "Islam" or "Muslims" which would be similar to criticizing "Catholics". All such cases are likely to raise my hackles.

If you were the one who asked about Landon, I repeatedly intervene in Landon threads. I even discovered paid sock-puppets in a Landon thread (one of my proudest moments).

[Anonymous]

Some background info. This might be obvious, but CH is considered to be a leftist / hard leftist publication in France, with a strong secular / non-religious flavor. This is why they have no problem mocking religion. Almost no one in France would say they are "racists", but plenty of people find it of poor taste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some background info. This might be obvious, but CH is considered to be a leftist / hard leftist publication in France, with a strong secular / non-religious flavor. This is why they have no problem mocking religion. Almost no one in France would say they are "racists", but plenty of people find it of poor taste.

And plenty of people find it to be a cathartic breath of fresh air against the ravages of hypocrisy and magical thinking. It's not like anyone is forced to read it.
And it's definitely not like they're protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers by holding up signs blaming every evil in the world on gay people...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

I don't need to be told to calm down. I'm very calm. It's condescending and unwarranted.

I apologize. I should have said, "Don't be so sensitive."

Not sensitive either. If you read my other comments in this thread, you'll see I'm quite rational. I noted an apparent contradiction in your statements. That implies nothing about my emotional state. I do object to men frequently characterizing women who disagree with them as needing to "calm down" or being "too sensitive", though. I don't know if you personally do that regularly or not, but I'll note it when I see it.

You are not doing a particularly good job of demonstrating your lack of sensitivity. By the way, I had no idea whether you are male or female and actually had assumed you were male. Had I known you were female, I would have told you to shut up and make me a sandwich (joking, joking, joking, I swear I am joking). A need to be calm and less sensitive is not something that I attribute to one sex over the other. Members of both sexes can stand to do both.

OK, I get pissed at Jeff too, but this is funny

I don't get pissed at Jeff, and I snickered under my pretend snarl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will publish one million copies of Charlie Hebdo next week, instead of the usual 60,000 copies.
It would be great if there were a way to pre-purchase them online. Some of us can have friends buy them for us but I imagine lots of people across the world would like to buy one and have it sent to them.

I forgot to mention that all proceeds from next week's sale will be distributed to the families of the victims.
Meanwhile, the Guardian has pledged $150k to keep Charlie Hebdo going, and Google has pledged $300k. Three of the biggest french media outlets have also pledged assistance with "all their resources" to keep the magazine going.

Vive la Liberte d'Expression!

+1

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OK, good point about the insults. Nobody should be insulted in a mean-spirited way. So, how about my points re the open season on Catholics and Wiccans here at DCUM? Why aren't you butthurt on behalf of DCUM's Catholics and Wiccans? You're even in a position to do something about it. (Again, I'm not Catholic or Wiccan.)

I have repeatedly asked for posters to use the "report" button to let me know about anti-Catholic posts. They almost never get reported. I have not read the Wiccan thread and there have been no messages from that thread reported. I can't do anything about posts of which I am unaware. I want to make one distinction between Islam and Catholicism. There is a Catholic Church with a structure and hierarchy and so on. I consider criticism of that institution to be fair game (unless the criticism has no basis in reality). There is not a similar institution within Islam. Therefore, criticism tends to target an amorphous "Islam" or "Muslims" which would be similar to criticizing "Catholics". All such cases are likely to raise my hackles.

If you were the one who asked about Landon, I repeatedly intervene in Landon threads. I even discovered paid sock-puppets in a Landon thread (one of my proudest moments).

I used the report button myself, a number of times. Nothing happened. It led me to believe that the threshold for insulting Catholics, or religious people in general, is higher than the scatological and much higher than your average Charlie Hebdo cartoon. I assume others have had the same experience, although I can't prove that.

Now I just ignore them or amuse myself by toying with them, because they aren't very bright. Meanwhile the Catholic hater wrecked the Wiccan thread, go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some background info. This might be obvious, but CH is considered to be a leftist / hard leftist publication in France, with a strong secular / non-religious flavor. This is why they have no problem mocking religion. Almost no one in France would say they are "racists", but plenty of people find it of poor taste.

And plenty of people find it to be a cathartic breath of fresh air against the ravages of hypocrisy and magical thinking. It's not like anyone is forced to read it.
And it's definitely not like they're protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers by holding up signs blaming every evil in the world on gay people...

How's that yoga instruction going? As PP said, you're definitely a master of stretching.

[Anonymous]

I liked mad.magazine as a kd. Ch sounds like the grown up version. What a terrible.world we live in that these dummies would do this to a smart, merry band.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

No, MuslimsMuslima. Your friend is wrong. In the West, first, you don't kill people. You converse, or boycott.

Why are all of these Muslims immigrating and leaving their countries and moving to France, the UK, the US? It's not for the freedom to practice their religion, they had that back home. It's because their home countries are failed states, because Islam doesn't work as a form of government.

1st you are assuming that all Muslims in France, US & the UK are immigrants. 2nd, the idea that people should just go back"home" is simplistic. And, finally, the issue I was raising goes back to Freedom of Speech, Freedom oF religion. If you label yourself as a free open democracy, why are you restricting the dress/religious practices of a part of your population? Also, why did Charlie Hebdo fire the satirist who wrote that Sarkozy's son would convert to Judaism for financial reason? Why was that considered anti-Semitic and he was put to trial while other religions are not treated the same? Why the double standard?

Yeah, I guess you missed the Holocaust. As well as centuries of discrimination.

Why are Muslims currently the subject of discrimination? It has a lot to do with 9/11, rightly or wrongly.

But I didn't mean Muslums should "go home," I meant that following religion before following the laws of a country doesn't work. Muslims are still working on the concept.

ITA with the bolded above. If you are living in France, and the law says no niqab, then you must abide by that law. There's no point in crying " oh heavens, double standard, no freedom of religion!". Any free, open democracy can restrict certain religious or other practices if lawmakers deem that they affect negatively any other aspect of civil life or somehow endanger their constitution. That's completely different as a private company such as this magazine making a business decision to fire a satirist (assuming what you're saying is true). It's amazing how some Muslims keep focusing on the supposed persecutions, discrimination or hardships they face in democratic countries, instead of pushing for reforms on the absolutely atrocious systems in almost every single Muslim country in the world. Christians are being killed by Muslims in Egypt and Nigeria, and yet you are here whining about cartoons and niqabs. Now that's a double standard!