In the news

.

Meanwhile, like pre announced yesterday from Greenhell, Le Pen is already riding the matter while trying to hide her happiness. Same in Italy with Lega Nord, and will see later from the other countries's right wing flocks what will be the outcome in the name of freedom.

@gios78 http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-stood-alone-what-does-that-say-about-our-free-press/

I don't agree with Jacob Canfield's argument BTW, the magazine isn't anti Muslim, it's anti-extremism and anti-intolerance.

I'm not suggesting anything.

Then why do you keep posting? So much posting.

What you are doing is making a lot of assumptions as to what people believe or think, and then attacking them. (I particularly liked it when you linked my criticism of your borderline-hypocritical position on censorship to me logically supporting the broadcasting of pedophilia. Classy).

Here's my suggestion. Don't pruposefully offend anyone simply because legally you have the right to. That's a dick move. Also, don't kill people because you've been offended. Very dick move. I have no problem admitting I would not (in the position where I'd have a choice) publish images of Mohammed, and not because I'm worried about pissing off ISIS wannabes (although, that's probably a bit of a fib), but because I don't want to be a dick to the many Muslims who are normal lovely people. I also wouldn't have published the video of the cop getting killed. But I wouldn't call people out (in either case) for "bad form" or "implore" them to take it down or accuse people of perpetuating "a level of indignity and bad taste" or whatever else was thrown around. Then I'd just sound a bit "self-righteous or pompous."

tl;dr

Utter rubbish. I work in a senior role for one of the world's largest news agencies so I am fully aware of the geopolitics. It's not idealism, it is the current reality. Which you may not like, but that's how it is.

There is a consensus, here and now. It's utterly feasible because it already exists. The media has to follow rules set out by society (statutory rules - i.e. the law) and voluntary codes (IPSO in the UK), which might not mean much to some outlets but we adhere to rigorously.

People going around murdering journalists who are merely exercising their right to freedom of expression makes for a fractious environment, not journalists reporting the news.

Sorry, you're alluding to two separate points here.

The first is me merely alluding to how radical Muslims don't take kindly to having their religion ridiculed. Everyone knows that, so anyone who deals in this subject knows it's potentially explosive. That's all I said - I expressed no opinion on the morality of that.

With regard to the video, I've expressed my position on it enough already: I don't think there's any justification for broadcasting it - I think it's grotesque, inflammatory and counter-productive. What's more, I think the reasons for showing it are disingenuous.

That's my opinion and I don't think it's a particularly radical position.

Re: religion

I reckon everyone should just steer clear of any ideology or religion or whatever that encourages you to act in this life in respect to a theoretical next one.

The promise of another life, and goals to achieve in order to reach it, is dangerous motivation. Its like playing GTA, or lucid dreaming. You do whatever you feel you want/need to do, because you can always start again/wake up.

Nothing diminishes responsibility like invincibility.

I don't care what your position is, I just don't buy your reasons for showing that video.

I don't want to keep coming back on here and explaining myself. There is no mystery to my position: I just don't think there's any need to show people that sort of footage, because I consider it both intrusive and voyeuristic. Moreover, people are quire capable of comprehending the horror of it without seeing it.

Can we just leave it at that - agree to disagree?

No, I disagree to agree.

Sorry, you're alluding to two separate points here.

I was referring to your "not suggesting anything" broadly - fair enough. I used it as a jumping off point. I still struggle to understand what your point is beyond "video is bad" and "people are shit, don't hate Muslims."

That's my opinion and I don't think it's a particularly radical position.

Of course it's not. In fact it's quite conservative. But your way of expressing it (along with the sheer volume of expression) is... insert-word-that's-not-too-pegorative-here.

I suspect I agree with you on much of this. However, your self-righteousness mixed with a willingness to dismiss other people on imagined arguments is problematic for me to stomach.

Anyway, I'm getting back to work.

I don't want to keep coming back on here and explaining myself.

#jesuischarlie

I miss Jeez

Nobody is picking on anybody personally, this insult of the prophet is a wholly religious concept, and anybody can mock an idea. They're not mocking individuals, they're mocking a religious idea. People voluntarily follow this idea. They don't have to, but they do.

If we go and stand back because we're scared, then what?
Like that ass that wants to threaten Irish people posting the pictures with the blasphemy law. Well, guess what, everybody is posting them all over his feed.

ISIS is killing a lot of Muslims. If we back off and denounce freedom of speech, and freedom to criticize ideologies who is going to stand up for any religious person when another religious person mocks the extremes and then gets threatened? It's not just the non - religious that are screwed if extremism can't be mocked and pointed out.

I consider it both intrusive and voyeuristic. Moreover, people are
quire capable of comprehending the horror of it without seeing it.

Whether or not its voyeuristic is down the the individual watching it. The onus there is on the viewer, so no dice. Same goes for it being intrusive, it's discretionary, behind a click. Whether you think people can comprehend the horror without it or not is irrelevant. I don't think people need to watch Loose Women, but i wont deny them the right to watch it.

I would deny that.

I think the problem is that you suggested Roboto take down the link to an article which contained the video. The video was not embedded on this site, content warnings were given here and on Vice- forum members are then free to choose whether they view the article and the accompanying video.

Don't want to see it? Don't watch it.

I think your argument that the link (again, not the actual video) should be removed because the family could stumble over it, or a child could be exposed to it is utter rubbish.

I was going to write a whole thing about how evil loose women is but i thought someone else would chime in

You bastids just want all the loose women for yourselves :(

I'm getting back to work.

LOL

Carol Smilie please...
#phwoar

she could eat an apple through a wire fence

edit: does it for me.

double edit: this brought me momentary joy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vekmOJZK8s

^ A Carol similie?

Ding dong dang breaking news

Gasparri, from Forza Italia in Italy, said:

"We should spend more money on missiles armed on planes and bombing their headquarters in their country, It's time for a war"

Wow, I thought, I always thought that we* did enough of that, and just when I was starting to feel myself more free that I realised that there is always a way and a time for to do better.

When I say we* I didn't mean as Italians.

Good grief....

I never said that the attitude of radical Muslims should not be lampooned/satirised/mocked, or anything else. What I said was that the lampooning/satirising/mocking of Islam makes one a target, on the basis that the more radical factions of Islam operate a kind of policy of zero-tolerance. That's a statement of fact, not a judgement or opinion.
I think that maybe my view on the video issue led people to assume that I was making a point about freedom of speech in general, which was not the case.

I apologise for the sheer volume of posts, but I've tried to address the individual points as they've been raised against me. You'll probably be relieved to read that I don't think there's much more I can contribute to this discourse (at least not without getting into the realms of moral relativism, theodicy, or notions of ethnocentrism).

Toodle pip!