Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[prisonermonkeys]

So in other words, we can do as we please and so long as we're not hurting anyone, then we haven't done anything wrong and if somebody is upset about that, then that's their problem?

That sounds like asking for trouble. Because beliefs are things that we hold to be universal truths. And those truths are reflected in our values, the qualities or characteristics that we consider to be worthy of admiration or respect. And our attitudes are our emotional reactions to anything that could be considered a value.

This isn't a problem of belief. It's a problem of values. If you value your freedom of expression over somebody's faith, fine. But if you upset someone when expressing yourself, you can't turn around and say "I'm practicing freedom of expression!" and expect them to take it, because what you have really said is "My values are better than yours!", and we get into a situation where you're imposing your will over someone else.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Could one justifiably say that Charlie Hebdo should have published a notice on their front cover saying "warning: this issue contains imagery of the Prophet Muhammad that may be offensive to followers of some forms of Islam"? Yes. People have the right to not be offended unnecessarily just as much as Charlie Hebdo have the right to free speech.

Does this mean that Charlie Hebdo should not have published the cartoons? No. Those who do not subscribe to the forms of Islam in which such depictions are considered offensive should feel no reason to buckle in to the demands of an ideology they are not in any way affiliated with, and should have every right to go against it assuming they are not doing something which could be considered illegal on other grounds.

Freedom of speech is a difficult issue. If you are threatening someone, that can still be considered a form of assault, and your right to freedom of speech can not protect you there. The same would (or at least should) go for a distributor of child abuse images or quack medical advice. Freedom of speech cannot justify such things, but absolute freedom of speech would allow them.

What freedom of speech as we understand it does allow for is the co-habitation of conflicting viewpoints. I may find someone saying that "the judicially supported murder of an individual with almost no ability to defend themselves is a good thing" as abhorrent and as offensive as many followers of Islam find depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, but I will not head out and kill people because they say "bring back the death penalty".

Instead I will respect their freedom of speech and their freedom to hold a completely conflicting viewpoint to me and attempt to convince them of my side through discussion and debate.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

This isn't a problem of belief. It's a problem of values. If you value your freedom of expression over somebody's faith, fine. But if you upset someone when expressing yourself, you can't turn around and say "I'm practising freedom of expression!" and expect them to take it, because what you have really said is "My values are better than yours!", and we get into a situation where you're imposing your will over someone else.

People should expect to have their viewpoints challenged and to learn from such challenges. That's how people come to understand not only each other, but also themselves better.

 

[MatskiMonk]

You would go insane trying to "respect" every sub-society's beliefs.

Yes, the much easier task is to not actively poke fun or mock them.

 

[Famine]

So in other words, we can do as we please and so long as we're not hurting anyone, then we haven't done anything wrong and if somebody is upset about that, then that's their problem?

Yes.

That sounds like asking for trouble.

It probably is, but only from people who believe that their beliefs are more important than anyone else's.

Because beliefs are things that we hold to be universal truths. And those truths are reflected in our values, the qualities or characteristics that we consider to be worthy of admiration or respect. And our attitudes are our emotional reactions to anything that could be considered a value.

That doesn't mean that they need to be respected or held sacrosanct from the mockery of others.

The belief that my children's genitalia must be mutilated is not one I hold and it's not one I'm going to practice, regardless of how much "trouble" that's "asking for" from people who think that they should be.

This isn't a problem of belief. It's a problem of values. If you value your freedom of expression over somebody's faith, fine. But if you upset someone when expressing yourself, you can't turn around and say "I'm practicing freedom of expression!" and expect them to take it, because what you have really said is "My values are better than yours!", and we get into a situation where you're imposing your will over someone else.

And what if they don't take it? Are they not saying that their values are better than mine and trying to impose their will over mine? What if their reaction is to kill me with a weapon of some kind - was I "asking for trouble" and fully deserving of my death for not having their values? Of course not.


I don't care what someone else believes. It's not my place to care, nor is it my responsibility to act according to what they believe. A picture of a guy called Mohamed is not profane to me, nor would it be if it was a picture of a guy called Jesus, or a guy called Buddha, or a graphic image of Angela Merkel being sodomised by Hitler. Sure, it might be offensive to someone else, but I'm not responsible for the contents of their head - whether it's policing it or kowtowing to it.

Yes, the much easier task is to not actively poke fun or mock them.

Which beliefs are exempt from mocking? I need to make a list to make sure I don't offend anyone with things that don't offend me.

 

[GTboyz]

I just saw the video from LiveLeak. It's a bit weird though when he shot that policeman, the shot seemed to have missed the him. I dont know but it just look weird to me, probably the camera angle though.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And what if they don't take it? Are they not saying that their values are better than mine and trying to impose their will over mine?

Not at all. It all comes down to what I have said about rights and responsibilities. Sure, you have the right to the freedom of expression - but you have the responsibility to recognise that this is not an excuse. I honestly think that some people seem to think that "I'm exercising my rights" is some kind of Get Out Of Jail Free Card, that if you argue you were exercising your rights, then nobody has any right to feel offended or upset.

If you are going to exercise freedom of expression, then you need to recognise that what you say or do might upset someone. And just as you have that right to freedom of expression, so too are the entitled to feel upset. You need to accept this; you can't say "well, I was exercising my rights" and expect them to just go away.

 

[Famine]

Not at all. It all comes down to what I have said about rights and responsibilities. Sure, you have the right to the freedom of expression - but you have the responsibility to recognise that this is not an excuse. I honestly think that some people seem to think that "I'm exercising my rights" is some kind of Get Out Of Jail Free Card, that if you argue you were exercising your rights, then nobody has any right to feel offended or upset.

If you are going to exercise freedom of expression, then you need to recognise that what you say or do might upset someone. And just as you have that right to freedom of expression, so too are the entitled to feel upset. You need to accept this; you can't say "well, I was exercising my rights" and expect them to just go away.

You're missing the point really rather badly.

Of course they have the right to be upset - but because anyone can take offence at anything at any time and for any reason, it is absolutely not the responsibility of anyone else not to say anything that might cause offence. Everything might cause offence - even nothing at all can cause offence.


And while they have the right to be upset, they absolutely do not have the right to visit harm upon someone as a result of their upset. Most of us learn this before we learn how to cross the road safely - sticks and stones and all that jazz.

 

[Luminis]

I have a question: at what point does the freedom of speech or the freedom of expression stop being that freedom and start being, for want of a better word, trolling?

If someone's trolling on GTP, they might be banned, not beheaded.

Sorry for cracking fun at a rather serious issue, but that's what it boils down to, as far as I am concerned. Being offended is one thing and perfectly acceptable, acting violently because of it is a different matter entirely. The Central Council of Jews in Germany has been offended by a great many things over the years but nobody's ever had to fear any acts of violence on their part. I wouldn't ask for those Muslim extremists to not be offended when someone's depicting their deity in a disrespectful manner, I'd just ask them not to kill over it.

Dunno, not killing someone over that sort of dispute is the bottom line of civilized behaviour, I'd say.

If you are going to exercise freedom of expression, then you need to recognise that what you say or do might upset someone. And just as you have that right to freedom of expression, so too are the entitled to feel upset. You need to accept this; you can't say "well, I was exercising my rights" and expect them to just go away.

So, if someone exercised their freedom of expression to insult me mum, they'd have to expect me to be upset to the point of murdering them? And they've been asking for it when they did?

Sounds awfully strange once the religious context is removed...

 

[Encyclopedia]

"Several attacks against France mosques since magazine killings: officials"

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/553124875708420096


*sigh* This is the last thing needed....

Also the policewoman shot earlier has apparently died.

 

[Luminis]

*sigh* This is the last thing needed....

Yeah, those PEGIDA right wingers are really using the whole ordeal to further their agenda as well

 

[Touring Mars]

New shots fired in Paris this morning. Police is currently not completely sure if it is connected to yesterday's masacre. Another one with an automatic weapon but he seemed to be alone. Fled by taking the metro.

http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-dive...ee-par-balles-ce-matin-08-01-2015-4428367.php

update: 2 suspects. One fled with car, the other one with the metro. One arrest (unclear). It's a policewoman who got shot in the back with an automatic weapon.

What a mess....

BBC are now reporting this too. Another sad day for Paris, France and decent people the world over.

How can we reasonably claim to be inclusive or multicultural if we don't respect their beliefs?

If that includes respecting the belief that the punishment for mocking religion is death, then you can count me out. Respect and consideration for the beliefs, sensitivities and feelings of others is wise, and it is often important - but it is also optional and conditional. When it comes to respecting the beliefs of others, it cannot and should not be the case that one must respect the beliefs of others no matter what those beliefs are. There's a major difference between respecting the beliefs of others and respecting the right of others to hold whatever beliefs they want - the latter is defensible and it does not require others to condone or subscribe to the views held by others. Furthermore, respect cuts both ways. Why should anyone respect the belief that murder is a justified response to satire?

 

[Spagetti69]

I don't consider myself a racist. But I'm getting there.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I don't consider myself a racist. But I'm getting there.

There's no need for that.

 

[Spagetti69]

There's no need for that.

Only thing expressing my feelings. Sorry if it offends anyone.

 

[eran0004]

I don't consider myself a racist. But I'm getting there.

Don't. It would only make things worse.

 

[Roger the Horse]

I wouldn't ask for those Muslim extremists to not be offended when someone's depicting their deity in a disrespectful manner.

There's something very ironic about this statement.












Muhammad is not considered a deity in Islam, he is considered a prophet.

 

[kennylmao]

I don't consider myself a racist. But I'm getting there.

You're not a racist. It's a religion.

Aaand of course damage control is already here, I see.

 

[eran0004]

You're not a racist. It's a religion.

Aaand of course damage control is here.

Xenophobia is probably the correct word.

What do you mean by damage control?

 

[kennylmao]

Xenophobia is probably the correct word.

What do you mean by damage control?

lol, I meant you guys. Straight away with your "no, don't think like that", trying to 'keep the peace'.

 

[doblocruiser]

@Mr. S Any info on this?

https://twitter.com/TimBdn/status/553148756846469120

 

[eran0004]

lol, I meant you guys. Straight away with your "no, don't think like that", trying to 'keep the peace'.

Do you have anything against peace?

 

[kennylmao]

Do you have anything against peace?

Nope.

 

[eran0004]

Nope.

Good.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Which beliefs are exempt from mocking? I need to make a list to make sure I don't offend anyone with things that don't offend me.

It's not about them having exemption from mockery, it's about not actively doing something in order to be offensive towards them on a large scale. I don't understand why it would drive anyone "insane" to not be deliberately provocative.

 

[Dennisch]

The 2 suspects have been located in the north of France, near Villers-Cotteret, after a robbery on a gas station. The 2 are masked and not hiding their weapons. Besides the arrest of the youngest of the 3, 7 others have been arrested.

And @prisonermonkeys

You are wrong if you think in anyway that the magazine brought this onto itself.

If you* are willing to give in to the needs of such a small part of overly religious retards there is no place for you in Western society. Nor is there place for them here. Or anywhere for that matter.

If we give it to them we might as well all just bend over and let them give it to us. If we give in to this, where does it stop? Plenty of people are offended by something. Should we give in for them too?
So that all books will contain nothing but white pages? The world will become a miserable place. And it's all thanks to a couple of idiots being offended and the spineless rats who caved.


*a general you, not you in person.

 

[Mr. S]

@Mr. S Any info on this?

https://twitter.com/TimBdn/status/553148756846469120

Yeah, my girlfriend got an email saying they should stay inside. She said it's fine and went to grab lunch...seriously, wtf is wrong with her.

She's working in the CNIT, so opposite of the Quatre Temps shopping mall, around 300m from it.

 

[Encyclopedia]

lol, I meant you guys. Straight away with your "no, don't think like that", trying to 'keep the peace'.

Yeah like there's something wrong with that.

 

[doblocruiser]

@Mr. S you probably know as well as me that nothing will with hold a French woman from what she needs to do

 

[Famine]

It's not about them having exemption from mockery, it's about not actively doing something in order to be offensive towards them on a large scale.

That's exactly what exemption from mockery is. You're limiting what can be mocked.

I don't understand why it would drive anyone "insane" to not be deliberately provocative.

You need to define what "deliberately provocative" consists of, because you're lumping in all satire with it if you use such broad terms.

You'll also need to define exactly what beliefs we can't be "deliberately provocative" towards. I mean, I'll assume we can make fun of beliefs like "I believe I should be allowed to have sex with children", but not beliefs like "I believe that any picture that purports to be a of Mohamed is offensive", so perhaps you can draw a line where actively poking fun and mocking is allowed and where it isn't.

 

[Mr. S]

@Mr. S you probably know as well as me that nothing will with hold a French woman from what she needs to do

There's a difference between taking unnecessary risks and not giving in to these idiots, we'll agree on that I assume.