Senate Terror attacks in Europe

I never actually said much worse is happening or it could have been much worse.

Offended much?

 

I think Diggy was sarcastically responding to Lord Vivic's posts, Jello.

 

Lello didn't say you did. He was talking about a friend of his.

And it's okay to offend Daveed, I'm fairly certain he won;t come and shoot you.

 

I think he knows, Jules

 

I don't know, I've made him mad before and it didn't end well.

 

No, no. It's not offensive. I have thick skin, crack Holocaust jokes with regularity, and all that. It's just puzzling and completely out of the blue.

 

Vivec's in a club of one and one alone on this and that won't change no matter how many people weigh in. Let's move on.

 

wtf

 

Welcome to two pages ago.

 

i had stuff to do

 

I'm sorry you're all offended that I pointed out that they weren't some great people standing up for everyone's free speech. I have a condo you can come shoot up, but you'll need to call beforehand so I can let you in.

 

This event is very unfortunate. I hope the perpetrators can be captured and processed through appropriate legal procedures. My condolences to their families.

One the topic of running controversy in this particular thread, I will say the following. Often times, there is a desire to conflate a cause and its standard-bearers, even when this isn't deserved. Social movements are conscious about this, and so try to pick ideal "test cases" to build their cause around. The US Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, for instance, had several instances they could have organized around before picking Rosa Parks as the best. Tragedies don't offer that luxury.

I'm convinced that free speech is a heroic enough cause. I don't have enough information at this point to say the same of the writers and artists at this publication. Insofar as this was Vivec's point, I think it's a reasonable one, however inarticulately expressed.

 

Are you okay?

 

Any attack on a person or organization because of something they published is an attack on free speech. It doesn't matter what they said, or wrote, or drew.

 

You've doomed yourself in this thread.

But thanks for being consistent with what you've posted on this topic in the past.

 

Ahem. Just to actually talk about Charlie Hebdo. Lord Vivec, don't you think it's unfair to call "a bunch of fedora-wearing euphoric 3edgy5me cartoonists whose entire goal was to offend as many people as possible" the people who came up with these cartoons:

Spoiler

"Eat French products -- Fed with jobless flour"



"The devastation caused by the German model."



"The travellers (Roma) are a threat to France."



"Too many chauvinists? -- I'm going to clean up the socialist party."



"Lampedusa -- The Mediterranean is implementing the Front National's policies."

There's a lot more to that newspaper than provocative (and usually vulgar) covers about religion.

Also, here's a cover that was published in 1970 about Franco. Not many papers at the time had the guts to publish these things.

 

>don't you think it's unfair to call "a bunch of fedora-wearing euphoric 3edgy5me cartoonists whose entire goal was to offend as many people as possible" the people who came up with these cartoons:

no?

 

I'd agree. I think Vivec would too. But for point of comparison, consider The Interview. The North Korean coordinated hacking effort was largely viewed as an attack on free speech, and the eventual decision to release the film was hailed as a positive step. However, many people also conceded that said film was banal, poorly written, and unsuccessful. They, in short, separated their criticism of the controversy from their opinion of the actual speech in question. I think this is more of the sort of sentiment he was hoping to hear (not specific dislike of the publication, but a discussion of its merits as separate from an instance of free speech being threatened).

 

Yeah, Charlie Hebdo have been stalwarts of leftist satire for decades. Their Franco cover is a classic.

I wouldn't be surprised if they shoot up The Onion's offices. Or maybe a redneck kidnapping and then beheading Stephen Colbert in public. After all, they merely try to be edgy and offend. It would be tragic, but let's keep some perspective. They are American, after all.

 

Vivec, I'm a little surprised with the particular mast you're lashing yourself to, when there are some really troubling aspects of the response to this - specifically, the usual brigade of "Durr hurr I put a piece of bacon on the Quran, I'm so hip" types that foster a generalized resentment of Islam and help push tragedies like this one into the realm of xenophobic rallying cries, which is always extra unsettling when there's already an overabundance of such sentiments in Western discourse. That alone seems much more likely to potentially result in real, further harm than the usual (Highly selective, not necessarily here but elsewhere) remarks about free speech.

Of course, the fact that horrible events such as this are frequently focus points for proselytizing on any number of pet issues bothers me more than I usually let on, massive hypocrite though that makes me, so that's probably coloring my viewpoint.

 

Considering his reply to Chyntuck's cover gallery, no, I don't think he was. You are being too generous and seeing a strong argument where there's nothing but an unhealthy obsession with a "fedora" straw man that has replaced his former obsessions with Christianism (first virulently for, then virulently against). It is disingenuous to ignore this pattern.

 

despite whatever you might think of the magazine, it's incredibly offensive in the wake of a tragedy to paint the victims as a bunch of fedoras or anything else, as if they weren't individuals, humans with their own hopes and dreams but just some stupid stereotype. even if the description of the four cartoonists was broadly accurate (as if you could even know), 12 people were murdered here. what of the two police officers?

vivec, what you see most people reacting to is how tone deaf and callous your reaction to mass murder is, not your particular thoughts about the content of charlie hebdo.