Hxstory

[gay_Aleks]

He's going to get bombed by terrorist immigrants that are IS sleeping cells! Also, he'll have to use his hard-earned tax money to fund those no-good terrorists.

I say, we should buy some good ol' drones, instead.

 

[Ryika]

That's easy to say, though. Provided it's not you that faces the real threat of getting "bombed".

That's why I can understand that the media decided to wussy out as sad as it is.

However, I cannot understand people who would defend the media for not showing the cartoons because of any reason other than not wanting to put their own lives at risk.

And I'd argue that the actual risk for being one of thousand outlets that published these cartoons would be marginal. The fact that nearly all media decided to be spineless shows how little we really value freedom when we actually have to defend it.

Not that not showing these cartoons had too much of a real, direct effect, but it's an attitude that will seriously harm us as a free society.

 

[Lexicus]

Not choosing to gratuitously insult people = serious harm to free society.

OK.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And whose side would the media be taking by showing the cartoons? All they would be doing is reporting the full story.

I find it disappointing that an otherwise intelligent poster like you has such difficulty to see that the media's self-censorship on this issue openly gave in to the demands of the terrorists, and by cowering to Islamic blasphemy laws caused a self-infringement on free speech which is not just unnecessary and misguided but extremely dangerous.

If they had showed the cartoons I wouldn't have a problem with it and I'd probably have enjoyed seeing them stick it to the terrorists and the overly-sensitive. I just don't agree that that was remotely necessary to accurately report the story, nor do I agree that a lack of doing that is necessarily indicative of having zero spine and caving in to ridiculous demands.

 

[NovaKart]

Not choosing to gratuitously insult people = serious harm to free society.

OK.

Who are you responding to here?

PC people are not only offended by gratuitous insults. They get offended by things reasonable people wouldn't be offended by although I'll admit this is a ymmv thing.

 

[Funky]

That's easy to say, though. Provided it's not you that faces the real threat of getting "bombed".

This is exactly why the cartoons had to be shown by the media throughout the free world. To spread the risk. As I mentioned before, a local newspaper in Germany got bombed for showing the cartoons. The cartoon contest in Garland Texas was attacked because people drew pictures. Drawing the picture of a certain person has become a life-threatening endeavour. The only way to combat this madness and to restore free speech is to spread the risk and publish pictures like this everywhere. The jihadists can attack single events or news outlets, but they can't attack everyone. Only this way can we make it clear that free speech is not negotiable.

One should add that this is not just about drawing Muhammed. It is about Islamic blasphemy laws in general, which we are willingly allowing to be imposed upon us. Criticising Islam in any fashion has become a very dangerous thing to do. People like Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Hamed Abdel Samad, Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders and others have to live a life under police protection or have had to employ bodyguards for what they have said about Islam. Not to mention people like Raif Badawi or other free-thinkers in the Muslim world who are greatly risking their lives just for asking questions, many of whom have been brutally murdered. To fight this medieval barbarism it is essential that we speak out and spread the risk, not least to support the victims of Islamic orthodoxy, the women, the gays, the atheists and free-thinkers. These people take huge risks if they speak out in their home countries; there is simply no excuse not to speak out in our Western countries, where we have the freedom to do so and where the risk is trivially small in comparison. If we don't speak out here, in our relative safety, we will abandon those who depend on our support, confirm the orthodox status quo, and impede on any attempts to make progress.

 

[Flying Pig]

Who are you responding to here?

PC people are not only offended by gratuitous insults. They get offended by things reasonable people wouldn't be offended by although I'll admit this is a ymmv thing.

I agree there's a level of over-reaction, but the basic principle is often sound - it's easy to say, from a detached position, that you can't see why anybody would be offended by a certain thing (see: Ryika's suggestion that we start using the word 'tranny' again), and to drown out those much closer to the coal face who are upset about it, because you are the sort of person with the sort of views that get heard sympathetically, and they aren't.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Then again it is not really agreeing with the other person, if you agree with a version of a view you tie to him/her but in reality it is distinct from their own.

 

[Funky]

I agree there's a level of over-reaction, but the basic principle is often sound - it's easy to say, from a detached position, that you can't see why anybody would be offended by a certain thing (see: Ryika's suggestion that we start using the word 'tranny' again), and to drown out those much closer to the coal face who are upset about it, because you are the sort of person with the sort of views that get heard sympathetically, and they aren't.

I am offended all the time by all the nonsense I am forced to hear, yet I don't make a tantrum about it and realize that such is the nature of free speech. If we start limiting our discourse to things that can't possibly offend anyone, we won't be able to say anything at all. It is often those views and statements which initially make us feel the most uncomfortable that cause us to change our minds and widen our horizon. People just have to stop acting so pussified.

 

[Senethro]

It's amazing how when some people say "free speech", what they mean is that they want their own personal speech to be be sufficiently protected that they can insult and intimidate who they want.

 

[Ryika]

It's amazing how when some people say "free speech", what they mean is that they want their own personal speech to be be sufficiently protected that they can insult and intimidate who they want.

Not sure what you even mean by "intimidate" in the context of what has been said in this thread. Surely active intimidation in the sense of threatening someone should be illegal, but nobody defended such a thing anyway? So I hope you're not getting into "This person said being trans is a mental illness, he's intimidating me!!"-territory (which nobody said either, but is a prominent example of a person claiming to be intimidated by another person merely giving their opinion).

Insults however are always taken, never given. Whatever is said to you, YOU are the one to decide whether you get insulted by it or not. There are certain things that are meant to insult you for the sake of insulting you, sure, but just because something offends you doesn't mean the person has said anything that he or she should not have been allowed to say.

On the topic of drawing Cartoons of Mohammed there is literally no need to get offended over it. If people who follow Islam want to set these rules for themselves that's their business, I however am not bound to their rules, neither morally nor legally and because certain groups still want us to abide by their rules it is perfectly within the realms of defending free speech to draw and display those cartoons. Not doing so would send the signal that OUR free speech ends wherever THEY want it to end. This signal is especially strong when after people have been murdered over cartoons the media are not willing to post these cartoons. And people actually start victim blaming the cartoonist while making excuses for the barbaric murderers.

 

[Atticus]

One should add that this is not just about drawing Muhammed. It is about Islamic blasphemy laws in general, which we are willingly allowing to be imposed upon us.

"Freedom of the press is at peril, since the press freely chose not to print what I wanted them to print".

 

[Senethro]

Not sure what you even mean by "intimidate" in the context of what has been said in this thread. Surely active intimidation in the sense of threatening someone should be illegal, but nobody defended such a thing anyway?

Of course, noone here would defend an obvious criminal action I hope.

So I hope you're not getting into "This person said being trans is a mental illness, he's intimidating me!!"-territory (which nobody said either, but is a prominent example of a person claiming to be intimidated by another person merely giving their opinion).

This is an absurd example you've chosen. I'm not old but plenty of European nations have removed homosexuality from lists of mental illnesses and decriminalized homosexual acts in my lifetime. Other nations haven't and have used this as a reason for institutionalization, incarceration and denial of political and social rights.

Ryika hears just an opinion. Someone else hears someone advocating a return to the bad old ways. Quite intimidating if you're on the wrong end of it.

Insults however are always taken, never given. Whatever is said to you, YOU are the one to decide whether you get insulted by it or not. There are certain things that are meant to insult you for the sake of insulting you, sure, but just because something offends you doesn't mean the person has said anything that he or she should not have been allowed to say.

What an utterly ridiculous thing to assert. There are plenty very obvious and ugly words associated with violence, repression etc that to say to another person are an open ended and uncertain threat of violence. Very intimidating.

There are very obviously some words beyond common insults.

 

[Ryika]

This is an absurd example you've chosen. I'm not old but plenty of European nations have removed homosexuality from lists of mental illnesses and decriminalized homosexual acts in my lifetime. Other nations haven't and have used this as a reason for institutionalization, incarceration and denial of political and social rights.

Ryika hears just an opinion. Someone else hears someone advocating a return to the bad old ways. Quite intimidating if you're on the wrong end of it.

Homosexuality? What? My example was about trans individuals, not homosexuals.

And even then yes, it's just an opinion. If you get intimidated by an opinion that's your problem, not the problem of the speaker. As long as the opinion wasn't specifically designed to intimidate you ("I think being trans is a mental illness." vs. "You trans people are mentally ill, we will deal with you!!") there is absolutely no problem with that kind of opinion.

If there were a problem whenever whenever some individuals decide that they feel intimidated literally anything would be off-limits.

What an utterly ridiculous thing to assert. There are plenty very obvious and ugly words associated with violence, repression etc that to say to another person are an open ended and uncertain threat of violence. Very intimidating.

That's just idiotic. As I have already said, a person can "feel" threatened by things that aren't designed to threaten them. "I don't like homosexuality." for example is merely the expression of a person who - while I disagree with his view - has every right in the world to give his opinion, yet it gets people up in arms and assert tons of other meaning behind it which then makes them feel threatened with violence.

 

[Senethro]

Homosexuality? What? My example was about trans individuals, not homosexuals.

And even then yes, it's just an opinion. If you get intimidated by an opinion that's your problem, not the problem of the speaker. As long as the opinion wasn't specifically designed to intimidate you ("I think being trans is a mental illness." vs. "You trans people are mentally ill, we will deal with you!!") there is absolutely no problem with that kind of opinion.

If there were a problem whenever whenever some individuals decide that they feel intimidated literally anything would be off-limits.


That's just idiotic. As I have already said, a person can "feel" threatened by things that aren't designed to threaten them. "I don't like homosexuality." for example is merely the expression of a person who - while I disagree with his view - has every right in the world to give his opinion, yet it gets people up in arms and assert tons of other meaning behind it which then makes them feel threatened with violence.

"Ugh, noone should be offended by free speech, even when that speech is advocating for the removal of their political and legal rights." - A white dude on the internet

Snarky and unproductive I know, I just find it staggering that you lack sufficient perspective or insight about how discussing whether a group of people is crazy or deserving of rights sounds to the group in question.

 

[Ryika]

"Ugh, noone should be offended by free speech, even when that speech is advocating for the removal of their political and legal rights." - A white dude on the internet

I didn't say a word about that people should not be offended about anything. People have the right to be offended about whatever they want, being offended just does not mean that the other person shouldn't be allowed to say what they said.

Tells a lot about you that you don't understand that basic distinction. And it tells me that responding further to you on this is not worth my time.

 

[Senethro]

Then I misspoke and I apologize. I restate:

"Ugh, noone should be intimidated by free speech, even when that speech is advocating for the removal of their political and legal rights." - A white dude on the internet

I'm not even sure why free speech is supposedly an absolute unlimited good anyway. Why shouldn't freedom of speech end where the full citizenship of another human being begins?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Freedom of speech is free, while admitting in all those dirty refugees/Mexicans/take-your-pick and giving them full citizenship is expensive.

 

[Senethro]

UGH

Strike "citizenship" and replace with "enfranchisement" if you must. Possibly, political and legal equality, de jure and de facto, with other long term residents.

 

[gay_Aleks]

What? And leave foreigners decide what happens in our country?

Madness. Madness, I tell ya!