http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883

Gun attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo kills 11

Gunmen have attacked the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 11 people and injuring 10, French officials say.

Witnesses spoke of sustained gunfire at the office as the attackers opened fire with assault rifles.

The satirical weekly has courted controversy in the past with its take on news and current affairs.

Its latest tweet was a cartoon of the Islamic State militant group leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

An eyewitness, Benoit Bringer, told French TV channel Itele: "Two black-hooded men entered the building with Kalashnikovs. A few minutes later we heard lots of shots."

The men were then seen fleeing the building.

"It's carnage," French police official Luc Poignant told another French channel, BFMTV.

The magazine was fire-bombed in November 2011 a day after it carried a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883
.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

running and getting in the getaway car. Now they showing pictures of the gun aimed at the policeman's head.

CNN is wiling

right before the pulled the trigger. Then they blurred it out. Messed up my whole morning.

The French news channels just show the rooftop video.

Not the cop being shot. But they froze frame as the terrorist is standing over the cop

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

Aka fat meat is greasy

Am I condoning murder, no. Murder is wrong. This is wrong. However, if you keep fucking with people who really will kill you and don't mind dying, you have to accept that this shit might happen


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

won't be pretty. Gotta respect folks that are willing to pay that price for what they believe in though.

> Gotta respect folks that are willing to pay
>that price for what they believe in though.

of course, u can do what u want but if u choose to respect them (and im talking about the perpetrators of this particular event), it says a lot about ur character imho

I respect that mindset of commitment not those actions. The newspaper should have as well.

In regards to courage and conviction, publishing articles critical of Islam in France>>>>>>>>>massacring unarmed journalists who hurt your feelings.

You continue to make a strong claim for the title of OKP's dumbest poster.

it's one thing to use cartoons to change perception or influence convo...

but this was just rude ignorant cartoons mocking a religion that we all know is down for whatever.

I never understood the need to degrade a religion like that..

I will joke a religion in a heartbeat in a controlled setting but no way would I go on live TV or print flyers mocking a religion.

All to prove what? They have talented illustrators? Muhammad had eye problems? What? What is the end game when you do something like that?

you are a fucking idiot, dude.

could endanger their whole staff. You suggest they should have stayed the course which would have led to this outcome? They only had about two choices.

You would be willing to jeopardize lives to print a funny illustration of a man who couldn't even get into Mecca on his first visit? Yeah-- that makes me the idiot I guess.

At the very least-- knowing that they were playing with serious serious "push Israel into the sea" kind of fire-- maybe implement a telecommute policy after releasing an inflammatory picture.

today it's your cartoon, tomorrow it's your mind.

Like I said every one knows these people are serious. I wouldn't put my staff in harms way, but that's just me. What was their goal in publishing that material? Just to mock Islam? Was it worth it? They're free reap the rewards of their actions too.

you sound like a goddamn fool. even in shit like the labor movement, we don't really celebrate the violent aspects. what differs about these people standing up for the sanctity of a religious symbol from klansmen protecting the "purity" or "racial integrity" of their town by killing non-white who showed their faces in it?

murder is fucked. you probably couldn't kill an ant yourself, so stfu

We celebrate violence every Fourth of July and Thanksgiving. We are violent people, most of whom are the products of alcoholic Europeans from half a continent that had known nothing but violence for centuries and our history books do not disagree. End of story.

>you sound like a goddamn fool. even in shit like the labor
>movement, we don't really celebrate the violent aspects. what
>differs about these people standing up for the sanctity of a
>religious symbol from klansmen protecting the "purity" or
>"racial integrity" of their town by killing non-white who
>showed their faces in it?

Is the concept of whiteness a centuries upon centuries old belief system with ties to a divine encounter? That is the difference. Reverence for the representative of their deity vs reverence for what?-- skin color I'm guessing. That probably won't make sense if you don't believe in a higher power which these men clearly do.

>murder is fucked. you probably couldn't kill an ant yourself,
>so stfu

Yes, yes it is Brad, but it's not about one's willingness to kill it's about whether or not you're willing to die.

do you get your views and understanding of history out of fortune cookies?

You've said nothing with that remark.

>Like I said every one knows these people are serious. I
>wouldn't put my staff in harms way, but that's just me. What
>was their goal in publishing that material? Just to mock
>Islam? Was it worth it? They're free reap the rewards of their
>actions too.

That was terribly reckless and it wasn't even for a good reason. It was for laughs, giggles and disrespect at the expense of folks that have shown they're not gonna put up with that shit.

should we admire them for commanding respect?

>should we admire them for commanding respect? <

I (imo) actually think it's fuckin crazy, but I'm not surprised by it. I think the problem stems from people down-playing these folks's outrage. The Prophet Muhammad may not be relevant to you, but he is to many.

Yeah, someone may shoot me for looking at them too long. This is the difference:

I could have been looking at them cause I thought I knew them.
I may be attracted to them or admiring an article of clothing.
I may have been looking past them entirely.
I may be blind.
etc.

I'm not sure that's the same as purposely creating a cartoon about someone's beloved religion, printing it in mass and distributing it all over the fuckin city or where ever the magazine runs.

and you knew they had a rep, would you step your stare game up?

minority group that's been targeted for abuse from public and private actors for several yrs.

was it worth it?

'freedom of expression' means gov't cannot suppress expression of ideas in the public sphere. but it also includes freedom to experience consequence by private actors.

IMO considering the risk of violent action by private entities i don't think the expression was worthy. it was ill-advised, tasteless, thoughtless, mean-spirited, assholish, and wholly unnecessary.

however, the violent reaction was much more egregious and is not to be applauded or respected on any level.

>however, the violent reaction was much more egregious and is
>not to be applauded or respected on any level.<

Agreed

>minority group that's been targeted for abuse from public and
>private actors for several yrs.
>
>was it worth it?
>
>'freedom of expression' means gov't cannot suppress expression
>of ideas in the public sphere. but it also includes freedom
>to experience consequence by private actors.
>
>IMO considering the risk of violent action by private entities
>i don't think the expression was worthy. it was ill-advised,
>tasteless, thoughtless, mean-spirited, assholish, and wholly
>unnecessary.
>
>however, the violent reaction was much more egregious and is
>not to be applauded or respected on any level.

of expression.

>'freedom of expression' means gov't cannot suppress expression
>of ideas in the public sphere. but it also includes freedom
>to experience consequence by private actors.

the first amendment only protects people from government intervention but conceptually the freedom of expression is a broad human right.

i guess you don't agree with that, but they're really not the same thing.

i don't give a fuck about the freedom of expression in the context of this story. i'm more concerned w/the mistreatment of brown ppl in Europe and i see this puerile cartoon as part of that mistreatment. and the fact that so many are more interested in standing up to protect an ideal that is not in danger while the health and safety and FREEDOM of non-whites in Europe is very much in jeopardy is appalling TO ME IN MY OPINION.

so fuck that. i don't give a shit about freedom of expression or the difference between it and freedom of speech.

thank you very much for the whitesplanation though.

"i'm not interested in the murder of political cartoonists as it pertains to freedom of expression."

brilliant.

i'm basically being called a racist for valuing freedom of speech by a person who isn't a complete idiot. this is absolutely fantastic. you'd be an awful poker player you tilt so badly.

yeah.

birds of a feather.

and all that jazz.

and i'm siding with respecting humanity and yourself enough that you would never consider resorting to murder over a cartoon.

i'm pretty happy on this side.

That the gunmen just did more to make life worse for French Muslims than the magazine ever did or even could, right?

If thats your biggest concern, id have expected you to ride the hardest against them. Because they just sent French Muslims back to 9/12/01.

Yes, you're right about the impact of their actions on Muslim/Non-Muslim relations in France. But I don't find anything inconsistent about SoWhat's position. Wrong, maybe, but not inconsistent

When an army comes to take over their country they fold, but to not disparage the belief system of another group-- that's what they choose to stand defiantly against? German aggression equals white flag but hate towards Islam equals we will not be bullied?

and are you buying into this historical narrative that Europe and also its targeted groups just rolled over for Germany? go fuck yourself, dude, seriously.

First of all, they are not going to pay the price, a bunch of well-meaning, everyday people who are Muslim are going to pay a big ass price in France.

Second of all, no, I don't have to respect people who ambush and office and murder a dozen people. I mean, at least with 9/11, while it wasn't "respectable," I thought it was erroneous to call the hijackers "cowards," because they pulled off a complicated plan and sacrificed their own lives to do it.

These guys are just a bunch of touchy pussies with guns that went in and executed people. There is nothing respectable about that.

are really serious about something. I know we all want to believe in holding hands and signs and such, but that doesn't build nations and can't defend anything.

Just go back to drinking the kool aid and be glad black folks aren't that serious.

these dudes are still on the loose.. pretty impressive for such a large scale attack that was caught on cameras

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

cops resent anyone who doesn't back them 100%, these guys resent anyone who doesn't back the sanctity of their religious symbols 100%. both respond with violence. one is just a world away and somehow romantic to your pea brain.

does not compute. Must be these tiny pea sized hamster wheels in my brain. I'd agree that some cats are religious about their policing, but that's about as far as I'd go.

actually religion is much worse.

Thanks.


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

Don't even know how to respond to that so I'll assume you are trolling.

but folks are reckless as fuck. You put a target on your own back, don't get mad when someone shoots at that shit. Same with that stupid ass Interview movie that folks wanted to see so bad.

Stop poking and prodding people, just to act like a victim later when you get fucked up. Of course I don't think folks should die over a cartoon. I certainly wouldn't kill anyone over a cartoon...but we should all be clear that there are plenty of folks who will. Call them crazy, radical or whatever. They'll still kill your ass.

we have to let them guide our actions now?

shit i am in a country where you could have someone killed over absolutely nothing for less than a hundred bucks. is that what guides our moral compasses and decides our actions now? the lowest common denominators and craziest fucking outliers?

.

should probably consider using common sense before doing stupid, unnecessary bullshit that sparks outrage and is rooted in disrespect. These muthafuckas didn't release that cartoon thinking it would bring people closer together. They were out there purposely fuckin with someone's religion and obviously weren't really considering the ramifications of it. That's their bad. They ain't innocent.

i swear to god for all the "x is different from y" shit you hear, the real difference is perspective and power. i bet you werent kickin this innocence bullshit when unarmed kids who stole cigars or drank lean were getting shot. PROPORTION. under no circumstances does an INSULT justify in any way a MURDER.

and i'm sick of this "well it's not right, but ..." bullshit in this thread. no. there is right and wrong. there is proportionate, commensurate, appropriate responses to wrongs. a blood bath does not qualify.

>RE: o ok so now people have to be innocent to be wronged<

Did I say that or are you being emotional? I literally typed that I don't think anyone should be killed over a cartoon and that I would never kill anyone over a cartoon. I also said I think killing in the name of religion is crazy. Not sure what more you want.

They were definitely wronged. They should not have been killed. BUT they sure did their part to make it happen.

>i swear to god for all the "x is different from y" shit you
>hear, the real difference is perspective and power. i bet you
>werent kickin this innocence bullshit when unarmed kids who
>stole cigars or drank lean were getting shot. PROPORTION.
>under no circumstances does an INSULT justify in any way a
>MURDER.
>

Great, but newsflash...I didn't justify any murders. I said their reckless, filthy magazine was a dumb idea and helped get them killed. And it's the truth. Maybe it's in bad taste to say it the same day that it happened, but it's the truth nonetheless. Had they not prodded and publicly taunted people who are known to threaten/ violence in retaliation for disrespecting their religion (again, the majority don't), they'd probably be here now. The world wasn't begging for that shit. The world wasn't begging to see a cartoon Muhammed getting sodomized. If they hadn't published it the world would have went on like it always does. But they wanted to be funny and get laughs at the expense of people that have been used as punching bags for the last what...14 years or so? And on top of that, people were already threatening them. Come on dude, that's reckless as shit. I'm not justifying the killings. I obviously wish it didn't happen, but it's not cowardly to NOT disrespect a group in a newspaper.

And people don't give a damn about your freedom of speech. We're all acting real naive right now.

>and i'm sick of this "well it's not right, but ..." bullshit
>in this thread. no. there is right and wrong. there is
>proportionate, commensurate, appropriate responses to wrongs.
>a blood bath does not qualify.

Be sick of it then.

it's not fair but they should have seen it coming is not a far cry from "they had it coming."

if it was a group you more sympathetic toward, you'd see it differently. people's biases are just out of hand in this thread.

>it's not fair but they should have seen it coming is not a
>far cry from "they had it coming."
>

Okay, that's fine with me. You can interpret it anyway you like. It does not change my view of the situation. If they were hell-bent on running that comic, even after being threatened, then yeah they should have seen that shit coming and I believe the owner did indeed say he knew there was a risk. That still does not mean they DESERVED TO DIE. It's saying the knowingly put themselves in harms way and probably should have taken the threat more seriously. Like I said earlier...that's their bad. They were reckless and got themselves killed in the process.

>if it was a group you more sympathetic toward, you'd see it
>differently. people's biases are just out of hand in this
>thread.

I'm sure you're even qualified to make a statement about what I would or wouldn't do.

Again, it does not matter if you believe in freedom of speech. The person pointing that gun at you may not. And at that point it really doesn't matter what the law says or how you WISH everyone else respected your right to it. We've all seen people take an L for exercising their free speech. This is nothing new.

>people who really will kill
>you and don't mind dying

This is the crux of the matter. This is rhe only aspect of the whole situation worth in depth examination.

How is that just so casually validated as an acceptable state of being?

i think thats a shitty state of being


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

and we aren't talking about someone who died protecting something, we are talking about people who willfully plotted a dead-end game with a lot of death involved. let's not put these assailants on the same level as slave rebellions or holocaust resistors, mmmkay? there are things i would die for, but what some needledick with a pencil thinks of my god ain't one of them.

Andrew Jackson who shot a man for disrespecting his wife. Seems to be the way the world works.

When life itself is not at risk, no. I see no circumstance i could kill someone ocer and then feel afterwards lilr i accomplished something great.

This is not that.

A few yrs ago. So he basically agreed. A child shouldn't have been in that office tho. I'm judging the hell out of that mother.

to go back to their own shithole countries. maybe the nationalists are at the least partially right.. fuck that shitty religion.

.

From a few other videos I've seen these guys look calm and measured. Not just firing shots all willy nilly. Wouldnt surprise me at all of theyve seen combat somewhere before



Wonder if police over there have assault rifles in the trunk like US cops do. Might be time to get up on that if they havent already

but...i mean, the French gov't is generally pretty awful toward Muslims in France based on stories i vaguely recall. like them trying to ban wearing of nijab in public spaces, for example.

still...DAMN.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/world/europe/european-rights-court-upholds-frances-ban-on-full-face-veils.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C{%221%22%3A%22RI%3A6%22}&_r=0

particularly since that wierd 'America, Fuck Year' nationalism streak is imho worse over there because they are so protective of their culture in the scheme of a larger Europe.

yeah, so murder 12 people who work at a small magazine! that'll show the evil french government how wrong they are for rescinding our right to cloak and dehumanise our women!

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

And it will be 10 to 100 times as worse as this whatever it is.

stuff that white people like

Somethin' badass!!

awesome repsonse

Cause I didn't now you could convert to or deconvert from race....

because Arab bodies have become racialized, in particular since 9-11, but even before then if we're being historically honest.

it's something I have constantly had to explain in conversations about race. When we only look at race in terms of the binary of Black and White in the west, we contribute to the marginality and erasure of people who are of other immigrant nationalities and ethnicities that have become racialized within the building of a particular nation state.

racilization is the process of making people other, in 2014 it's not only relegated to those in the African diaspora, and never was in the context countries in the colonial west

Islam is not a race, but Islam is tied to Arabs, who are interpolated as "Brown Bodies" in popular representations and discourse, therefore they are racialized

if we want to be specific and call if Islamophobia or xenophobia, so be it, but at it's root it's racism, just like talks about regions in the borderlands of the American southwest concerning immigrants are racist

nah

discriminating against islam is not racist. however, discriminating against people with "brown bodies" because of the colour of their body is. white people can be muslims too, so your argument falls through

and discrimination is not the only component of racism

and two, no Islam/Arab body is read as white, particularly in this INTERNATIONAL cultural climate, which is why Sikhs are constantly at the end of racist assaults, because racism allows brown bodies, that are not Arab or Muslim to be, to be drawn into the collective racist imaginary.

the particulars or Islam as a religion, of Arabs as a varied and nuanced ethnic group, are lost on the social component of acts of racist aggressions on the micro or macro level

Do you think that Muslims are the only ones who will face abuse?

The terrorists accomplish nothing with this act except further suffering for the people whom practice Islam in an open and democratic society.

Going after cartoonist's is the most asinine and senseless thing these people could have done.

Clearly they do not have a concept of satire, nor are they true practitioners of Islam. If you study Islam you know it is non violent at its core. A "Jihad" is not a war on "infidels" or "non believers", it is a war on your "personal demons", it has zero to do with external influences or people. They have clearly interpreted Islam in a way which is governed by political agenda.

Calling god's name while killing people is revolting. All they did was further tarnish Islam and its believers. This act will not stop satire from occurring. It was short sighted and will create more problems.

but they also looked real calm and cool like a special ops unit.

I bet they are back in Iran or Syria already..

and I bet folks in France will think twice about running another cartoon. I want to say the Dutch won't be playing that number at the roulette table again either.

If violence wasn't effective people wouldn't resort to it.

you're sounding like a weak, pitiful man

There is absolutely no way this could be used by radicals to further their cause. It just doesn't work like that does it? Someone in the Middle East with nothing to loose will see this and say "those people are crazy-- no way I'd do that".

Funny how the guy who jumps in with name calling wants to paint someone else as pitiful.

i don't give a fuck about it "furthering" any cause.

i just think it's pitiful when people jump in to defend a bunch of nihilistic, psychopathic murderers and then say, "bet they won't mess with THEM again!" and gain some sort of glee from it.

Not sure what you thought was gleeful about my response.

It's the stupidest most asinine thing I could possibly hear coming out of a black man's mouth.

We suppose to admire the conviction of Klan Members now?

Emmett Till should have known better than to poke that hornets nest of street hollering at a white woman?

MLK and Malcolm X should have known it was coming with the turf of speaking out can get you killed?


Y'all really so ideologically programmed that you can't see that there are a gazillion instances where anyone can turn your arguments around and reframe then to make y'all look like dumbasses?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

i'm glad you said it, because i was certainly thinking it.

she knew she shouldda had that meal hot when I got home: it's her fault for testing me!

not many folks can achieve that!

^ strawman.

but yeah.

one can't be right in conviction but wrong in action?

.

So, yes.

i think Bin meant that the poking of the bull was ill-advised.

of course those ppl should be and are perfectly free to poke the bull. but...i mean, it's a bull.

and in this case it's a caged bull that's been terrorized and picked on by the zookeepers.

so yeah...go poke it if you want.

and don't act brand new when he jumps bad on you.

he phrased it coarsely but i mostly agree w/him.

that magazine's decision to go at Islam the way it did was awful and completely unnecessary.

and, of course, the ppl who committed this violence are not a bull. they're ppl who should and do know better - especially if they actually practice Islam. and what they did shouldn't be excused as just part of their nature in the way we'd excuse the bull for attacking the poking person.

so his statement was ham-fisted and coarse and insensitive. and i guess i don't agree w/it b/c these terrorists are not a bull - they're terrorists.

but i don't stand by that magazine's decision to publish those cartoons either.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

and i think it was outrageously offensive and flat-out stupid to publish those cartoons.

but the violence is more unacceptable.

i'm not down w/painting the magazine as innocent in this.

even people who say things i dont like, i hate that they are being shouted down and forced to go away. if bigots can speak freely, they are a lot easier to identify. at least let me know what i am dealing with.

no one disputes the magazine's right to publish the cartoons.

the violence against the magazine is deplorable. the cartoons are puerile and the publishing of those cartoons was reprehensible.

but part of freedom of expression goes beyond just preventing the government from fettering or censoring speech, it also has to do with protecting them from violence that may arise. technically everyone in mexico is "free" to say or report whatever the fuck they want about cartels. but the press and citizenry alike there are, in reality, very much not free to express themselves or even convey factual information.

seeing the cartoons now, they are tasteless but you could run them about just about any other religion (even marginalized ones within French society) and not fear this type of reprisal.

you're working hard to make this grayer than it really is, and i am sure you disagree with that statement vehemently.

we get it, you think murdering a dozen people including a cop who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time is an understandable response by individuals who are part of a group that was kicked while they were down. cool. bully for you.

your global version of Islam is pretty strict but you have a vast majority of people who choose to follow it. Some follow it correctly and others subvert it for their own cause, also not unlike other religions. A leading difference I would say is that at least in Islam, their language very clearly dictates the lengths their followers must go for the cause. It's not so much like Christianity where we've had revisions upon revisions so now we can just brush them away as old mythology.

You also have to consider that in France, the Islamic people's religious freedom has already been downsized and treated as irrelevant; and this is in regard to innocuous things as simple as religious dress. Now add a tasteless newspaper while they had all the right, I'm pretty sure they received more than one warning from offended extremist parties. But they kept at it.

One of our favorite expressions is "show 'em better than you can tell 'em" and unfortunately one group finally did. If this wasn't an opportunity for a mutual respect of religious differences and perhaps one day, tolerance. I don't know what is.

As far as my feelings go however, when you have a large group of people with a long history of oppression that goes unheeded, how can you not give dissenting voices and actions any kind of credence?

*shrug*

"i wanna hug all u idiotic bastards & then set you all on fire" -Bin

www.twitter.com/bedstuybetty
http://bedstuybetty.tumblr.com/
DROkayplayer: Giving you good puff since May '05

and violence is the language. Or have you not noticed? You have seen Malcolm looking out the window with the AK right? Martin supposedly kept a pistol.

Did Emmit holler at that woman? I don't know, but white women aren't considered the prophets of God-- and if folks can't understand it on that level then there can be no understanding. I know it's the lowest hanging fruit to try and compare white supremacy to Islam, but guess what? Ain't nobody facing Europe three times a day to pray to whiteness.

These dudes are twisted, but they don't make idle threats and they're willing to put their lives on the line for their wrong (IMO), but very personal beliefs. How many Klansmen lost their lives defending the so called purity of their so called race?

but those cartoons were extremely insensitive, ignorant and fairly racist and misogynist too.

Folks in here acting like these guys were writing intelligent critiques of the excesses of Islam as a religion.

The cartoons were ignorant, bratty and deliberately provocative.

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

They wanted to get a response... they got it.

I don't endorse it, obviously. This is terrible, wrong, barbaric.

But like Bin said above... fat meat is greasy.

May their souls rest in peace and may their murderers be brought to justice.

we draw the line at cartoons.

Got it.

especially considering the position of Muslims in France and Europe generally.

it's just mean-spirited and unnecessary to publish depictions of the prophet knowing how it can upset/enrage that population given the way they're treated.

it'd be different if this had happened in a place where the Muslims aren't stepped on as much as they seem to be stepped on over there.

society if expressions of critical ideas drives you to murder.

You can throw a hissy fit like Giuliani and the pissed covered Jesus (or was it virgin mary?). You can protest.

But murderous revenge can't be part of the conversation.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Where exactly are the "critical ideas" there?

It's just simple, juvenile, racist disrespect... over and over again.

a pluralistic society, you got to get use to OTHERS not respecting YOUR faith's dictates like don't depict the prophet.

Again, Pluralism and Intolerance can't co-exist. One of them will eventually give. Which one do YOU want to go away?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

>Again, Pluralism and Intolerance can't co-exist. One of them
>will eventually give. Which one do YOU want to go away?

Is not.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

within a secular state.

My answer is not much. If your religion commands you to do crazy ass shit--like hold slaves or stone people--then fuck it and fuck you. We're all trying to LIVE.

publishing those cartoons wasn't the right thing to do.

i will defend Charlie's right to publish the cartoons all day. meaning if the gov't was trying to shut it down i'd defend Charlie.

but i'd have advised Charlie not to publish b/c it wasn't right.

b/c Xtians aren't disenfranchised here like the Muslims are relatively disenfranchised over there.

plus even the fundamentalist Xtians don't flip out over depictions of Jesus like the extremist Muslims freak over depicitions of the Prophet.

it's not really the same thing.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Xtians have more power in NYC than Muslims do in Paris.

>Xtians have more power in NYC than Muslims do in Paris.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

formation, if you don't "get" SW's distinction

power is fundamental in all social things

If you are saying that it's understandable that some people act in facist and intolerant ways because they are underprivileged or oppressed.

Fuck that moral relativism. Y'all sound like Dick Cheney. It's okay if we do deplorable things, we are the righteous one!

Miss me with that.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

so there's that

The French also like their way of life and will fight tooth and nail to keep it. Asking a French man on French soil to change on a "foreigner's" behalf is laughable.

Muslims in Europe have made demands which tread on very old traditions, and I think this is part of the reason tensions have risen so quickly. Many Muslims emigrate to other nations and expect the laws to change on their behalf, always under the banner of god. That leaves little room for negotiation.

In other nations such as Australia, the government simply stated that Muslims can leave if they don't like the Australian way of life. The French are clearly not as polite, and never will be.

Are the comics a bit over the top by Muslim standards? Definitely. Are they too much according to French customs and humor? Not at all. A French man should have the right to be who he is on his own soil without consequence. I think emigrating Muslims should study and embrace the customs of the countries they are emigrating to, instead of expecting the laws to change based on their religion, or ultimately turning to extremism when they do not.

Edit: Muslims should respect host country customs especially when they are fleeing their home Muslim nations which are riddled with violence and corruption.

I would never go into your house and rearrange the furniture, or take pictures off your walls because they do not correspond with my views/faith, so why should the French?

so I get what you mean about the French sense of humor.

Some of this shit still crosses the line, I think. But of course, I'm not French. However, I do understand what it is to be a downtrodden minority in a country whose dominant culture is dedicated to disrespecting you at every turn.

As for that stuff about "emigrating Muslims" having to toe the line when they come to France... fuck that shit.

France reaped a fuck-ton of wealth from colonialism and now when their former colonial subjects move to France, they're supposed to act like the French are doing them a massive favor by letting them exist?

Doesn't France actually still tax some of its former colonies for the benefits of colonialism that they continue to enjoy?

Fuck that.

> A French man should have the right to be
>who he is on his own soil without consequence.

w/o consequence from the government, maybe.

but they aren't free from consequence from private citizens.

I think
>emigrating Muslims should study and embrace the customs of the
>countries they are emigrating to, instead of expecting the
>laws to change based on their religion, or ultimately turning
>to extremism when they do not.

most Muslims don't turn to extremism when they have cultural conflict. they typically voice their concern in other venues - including in court.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/world/europe/france-burqa-ban/

>I would never go into your house and rearrange the furniture,
>or take pictures off your walls because they do not correspond
>with my views/faith, so why should the French?

if i allow you move in to my house so that it's OUR house and not just mine, i wouldn't poke and prod and ridicule you and make your life in our home miserable. and if i did you'd have some recourse against me w/the government. you could call the police, for instance. but if you're in a situation where the police won't respond to you or where the police join me in picking and prodding at you...what's left for you? i mean, it's clear i'm trying to force you out of our house b/c i don't want you there though i invited you or allowed you to move in. i clearly want you out and am using passive aggression to get it done b/c i'm that much of an asshole. i don't think my action is really defensible. and if you were to jump me one day in our house that i've made a living hell for you through my passive and assertive aggression...what's left for you? you shouldn't get violent w/me but if you do? i mean.... you ain't right but i'm not exactly blameless. i would be well-advised to consider the role i played in creating the situation.

>if i allow you move in to my house so that it's OUR house and
>not just mine, i wouldn't poke and prod and ridicule you and
>make your life in our home miserable. and if i did you'd have
>some recourse against me w/the government. you could call the
>police, for instance. but if you're in a situation where the
>police won't respond to you or where the police join me in
>picking and prodding at you...what's left for you? i mean,
>it's clear i'm trying to force you out of our house b/c i
>don't want you there though i invited you or allowed you to
>move in. i clearly want you out and am using passive
>aggression to get it done b/c i'm that much of an asshole. i
>don't think my action is really defensible. and if you were
>to jump me one day in our house that i've made a living hell
>for you through my passive and assertive aggression...what's
>left for you? you shouldn't get violent w/me but if you do?
>i mean.... you ain't right but i'm not exactly blameless. i
>would be well-advised to consider the role i played in
>creating the situation.

The French have always been a crass bunch. They had every right to print and create the satirical cartoons in question. If you do not like French humor, ignore it. A cartoon does not strip you off your rights or take food out of your mouth. It certainly did not condone a massacre and it does not warrant blood. There is not a single human being alive that takes satire seriously. Why are Muslims so insecure about their beliefs?

The terrorists exposed themselves as barbaric and senseless, and tarnished the name of all Muslims, which will be irreversible in France. Expect a heightened sense of paranoia, suspicion, and discrimination from the French public and government. The response will be harsh and cruel. I sincerely doubt France will open their doors to Muslims in the future.

Many Muslim immigrants are fleeing corrupt, unstable countries, where ancient and barbaric laws still govern. Where the threat of death in the name of god still looms. If you enter a nation such as France, which provides you with freedom, good health care, and opportunity, is it wise to expect and demand French officials to change laws based on your religious beliefs? Laws which the French sacrificed millions of lives to establish?

Immigrants are not citizens.

Dealing with an offensive cartoon, or rather, ignoring one, is a far better alternative than living in a nation with no future. You can't always have it all, and most of the time, the world is not fair, but, you have to choose your battles wisely.

Why do Muslim's believe the entire planet is their oyster and that every nation they emigrate to should accommodate them and their beliefs? Isn't that a little arrogant? It was a mistake for me to use the House analogy because I think it is too simplistic. Immigrants are not considered native. The French perspective is that they are sharing their home and culture with you. They certainly do not consider Muslims as French.

I'm sick of hearing whitey talk about the magazine's right to publish. Fuck that magazine, that cartoon and whitey and France for its treatment of Muslims and any non-white immigrants.

Whose whitey btw?

Also, have you ever investigated or learned about how Muslim's treat each other? The way whitey treats Muslims in France is heaven compared to where they emigrate from.

How narrow minded to ignore why Muslims are emigrating in the first place.

They are fleeing barbarism produced in their home nations. So, I suppose, fuck Muslimey for treating Muslims the way they do as well? Or should we just pick and choose what to get mad at based on our own predispositions to race and religion?

anymore

Know thyself stupid.

>In other nations such as Australia, the government simply
>stated that Muslims can leave if they don't like the
>Australian way of life.

.... right?!?!

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFL.

but hey... I've never understood why cartoonists have continuously felt the NEED to make these strips ridiculing The Prophet that a certain segment of society holds sacrosanct. Especially when they have told you over and over and over again that they take this shit seriously and they will act decisively in the face of it.

It's one thing to criticize Islam, but when you are drawing pics of the Prophet Mohammed with his ass cheeks gaped, you are really provoking a certain kind of response. I'm not saying that summary execution is the rational proportionate response... but why go there at all?

And people will say "Well, we have to do these cartoons to show that we are free and we can talk about anything we want!"

That's bullshit.

Even in "freedom-loving" democracies, there are certain topics that you can't touch. We've decided that jokes about rape are intolerable, so for the most part, everybody stays away from that. In America, a certain kind of joke about race can end a career in an instant, so people manage to restrain themselves from engaging in that kind of material.

Why do you NEED to make these racist, misogynist and anti-Islam cartoons? You're free to do it, of course... but WHY? What point is really being made beyond just flaunting how irreverent and disrespectful you are?

Just dwell on Cartoons and Jihadist murders being in the same conversation.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Again... not saying it's right. But those cartoons in themselves constitute a certain kind of psychic and social violence upon the Muslim population of France, not just the extremists.

I don't understand why they needed to publish that shit, besides being assholes.

>I don't understand why they needed to publish that shit,
>besides being assholes.

The French are assholes and always have been. Nothing is off limits, not even their own. You don't have to look far into history to learn what the French are capable of doing to their own people. I will respond to your other message when I get home.

I personally see a lot of value in what it says about some aspects or elements of Islamic culture that they get driven to violence over a cartoon. There is a social value in bringing this to light. It exposes intolerances.

It exposes the exact same thing that the dung covered Virgin Mary exposed.

And I am not saying my POV trumps your POV about the social value but rather if there is a POV that believes it has social value than that trumps any POV that says it does not have social value.

At least that's how it should work in a free society IMHOP.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Just sayin'

getting murdered. so that when it's our free speech at stake we would be treated the same way.

Do I really need to do how free speech works 101?

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

'free speech' applies ONLY to the gov't.

it means the gov't can't suppress political speech.

it doesn't mean ppl can say what they want w/o facing consequence from private citizens.

so Chik-fil-A's president can use his money to fund anti-gay campaigns. the gov't can't punish him for it - that's free speech. but private citizens can organize boycotts of CFA restaurants b/c they don't like the president's speech in the form of spending his money on anti-gay campaigns. that's free speech too.

so this French magazine is free to publish those cartoons w/o gov't interference or punishment. but private citizens can respond w/their own speech. of course, that speech shouldn't include violence.

today's violence is inexcusable. understandable, but inexcusable.

of your free speech to be violence or other criminal activity.

It kind of explains why our government is getting involved with the Sony hacks.


But that's neither here nor there. The conversation drifted to why I would support the klan being allowed to disseminate it's propaganda and my reasoning is based on principles of a free pluralistic society which includes free speech.

You just gave the rote response to people using the term "free speech" wrong when it really wasn't applicable.




>'free speech' applies ONLY to the gov't.
>
>it means the gov't can't suppress political speech.
>
>it doesn't mean ppl can say what they want w/o facing
>consequence from private citizens.
>
>so Chik-fil-A's president can use his money to fund anti-gay
>campaigns. the gov't can't punish him for it - that's free
>speech. but private citizens can organize boycotts of CFA
>restaurants b/c they don't like the president's speech in the
>form of spending his money on anti-gay campaigns. that's free
>speech too.
>
>so this French magazine is free to publish those cartoons w/o
>gov't interference or punishment. but private citizens can
>respond w/their own speech. of course, that speech shouldn't
>include violence.
>
>today's violence is inexcusable. understandable, but
>inexcusable.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

however, yes...violence in response to non-threatening words is usually a criminal act.

>You just gave the rote response to people using the term "free
>speech" wrong when it really wasn't applicable.

you need to be right, so i'll agree.

Personally, I'm outraged the way racist expression gets silenced in society these days... How social media goes on these crusades to get people fired over some shit they said on their own time. But of course, freedom of speech does not include immunity from the consequences of your speech.

I'm cool with the KKK being able to say their shit... I respect Charlie's right to say their shit too.

But again: I don't get the point of it. Especially when they know they're dealing with a cohort that is really 'bout that life. If they willfully elected to take on that challenge, then I guess my hat's off to them.

To me it's like... I don't think the cops have the right to execute me randomly on the street. But personally, I'm not gonna go out of my way to provoke the cops either because I know how they do.

Someone else wants to be that martyr to prove a point... I commend you. Wouldn't be me, though.

Call me a coward if you wish, but when I choose to put my life on the line it will hopefully be for something more significant (to me, at least. I guess they felt drawing pics of Mohammed being sodomized was worthwhile. I think it's dumb and needlessly disrespectful and aggressive toward the Muslim community)

And are still allowed to exist even though they are a terrorist organization themselves? This is why y'all need to find a better analog for this topic.

next week.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/business/media/the-wizard-of-watts-mirrors-debate-over-police-brutality.html?_r=0


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

When the right attack Wizards of Watts and it's criticism of Police Brutality and it's depiction of cops as Pigs, a lot of these same folks here will be defending the CARTOON as important free speech.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Reading comprehension is lost. Read what I'm saying not what you think I'm saying.

Murder is wrong. Killing is wrong. Violence is not a solution to the balkinazation happening in western society. I disagree with those who would kill innocent people, whether the murderers are police killing civilians in america, civilians killing police in american, western armies killing Muslim civilians or Muslim soldiers killing western civilians etc

But.

One must realize the serious, dead serious nature of shit. And if you are going to attack in print a deified figure for people with a known capacity for violence...a known desire go kill and if nesscessary die for what they want they fine...do it. But when violence erupts? Don't look around and wail and gnash your teeth. You wanted this here it is...now its your move.

Malcolm x knew he would be killed his close friends believe he welcomed his death. MLK knew it. When you are in conflict with other peoples core beliefs...people with guns. People with a history of killing...then you are saying I'm willing to die for the right to say fuck you.

In which case god bless, you have giant nuts...and here is your martyrdom. You earned it.

>You wanted this here it is...now its your
>move.

The average muslim doesn't care about crazy ray ray and dem with the AK's or political cartoons. However, the potential fallout for this will most certainly lead to societal payback more then a 12 deaths.

The problem with this line of thinking, like Buddy said above, is that the same logic applied to other situations ends up being a game of 'blame the accusers'. Everything from tight dress=rape, the popular example above of disagreeing with a cop=resisting arrest=death, etc.

You should be able to offend and not have to deal with a massacre. The second we curtail our habits in attempt to appease a vocal lunatic minority we are fucked.

While I agree that I might be not be the one one possibly testing those crazy motherfuckers, the second we start second guessing someones right to it...we've lost.

>You should be able to offend and not have to deal with a
>massacre. The second we curtail our habits in attempt to
>appease a vocal lunatic minority...etc

If it were something fundamental, like Muslims wanted to change the alphabet or reverse the side of the street we drive on or make every Friday a government holiday that would be one thing.

But what do you really lose by not being a troll? Is that so hard to accommodate?

That's completely different from wearing a tight dress, I think...

>>You should be able to offend and not have to deal with a
>>massacre. The second we curtail our habits in attempt to
>>appease a vocal lunatic minority...etc
>
>If it were something fundamental, like Muslims wanted to
>change the alphabet or reverse the side of the street we drive
>on or make every Friday a government holiday that would be one
>thing.
>
>But what do you really lose by not being a troll? Is that so
>hard to accommodate?
>
>That's completely different from wearing a tight dress, I
>think...
>

But iltimately I let them rock; reason we ban tends to be because of the crowd reaction then the actual trolls themselvs (not like any of the mods are running to go pop into those posts just to be mad).

You can argue which is worse; a bunch of dudes willing to easily take a life at a sign of disrespect or a bunch of guys willing to disrespect for yuks/bias, etc...but to me it's a pretty clear black and white line. Assholes are a part of life, and would even be in a utopian society (we human!). Not necessarily murder.


On that short skirt remark:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/hipsters-hasidic-jews-fig_n_384579.html


Not to step into a anti-semetic/misogynistic discussion, id argue that above article shows the line is pretty grey and not necessariy black and white. It just feels that because a lunatic fringe (religious extremists) have made themselves into boogiemen we deal with them much differently then we would others who we would go tell to go fuck themselves.

>
>You should be able to offend and not have to deal with a
>massacre.
>

That's probably true, unfortunately that's not the reality here on Earth. Again, people need to use some common sense and judge the threat based on the reality of the situation...not what everyone wishes it SHOULD be. This whole situation points to an immaturity in dealing with OTHER people.

They will blow themselves up to kill you.

They will blow their children up...to kill you.

You want the freedom to fuck with those people in print, keep your explosive alarm on deck and a bulletproof vest and do your thing. The shit isn't right but its real.

I am not advocating for violence but its naive to think violence is not an option for people. They feel attacked. They will fight back. Bottom line. You getting involved in a real gun fight where motherfuckers are dying and all you got is a pencil. Well, good fucking luck


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

giving the same *shrug* there was always a chance is just problematic on a societal level.

I may go and take a shit on a neighbors lawn cause we beefing over a parking space, but shooting me in the head in front of my kids in retaliation ain't the move. Neither is a cop choking me to death cause he accidentally got shit on his shoes arresting me, lol

Alot of thing we do are silly and insensitive. it's not supposed to kill you though.

wonder how western culture & society would be different?

if our world wide rep was not "violent low class ignorant criminals" but "violent abt _______ cause"

im not saying the killing is right. its totally wrong. some innocent muzzi person in france is going to get their ass kicked tonight over this. right wing french are going to be hella hateful towards muslims even more so now. etc. its all bad.

but! the magazine played a role in this. period. is it their fault? no. is it their responsibility? no.

but if you shit on my grass & i kill you. im going to jail. but your dead. maybe you shouldnt have shat on my grass?

im kinda tired of having my grass shat on for real.


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

there's no ordinance saying i can't be noisy in this office. no rule in the office saying i can't.

but i have an office mate who wouldn't appreciate my loud music - so i use earbuds.

b/c it's the right thing to do and b/c it doesn't cost me much of anything to use earbuds instead of speakers. blasting music in my speakers is not so important to me that i'm willing to make a stand on it.

i guess if the publisher of the cartoons and the French ppl generally think those juvenile, puerile cartoons are so important to their way of life that they're willing to upset a disenfranchised minority population w/them just to prove a point even though it's clearly the wrong thing to do...i wish them the best of luck w/that bullshit. and i'm glad i'm not French and i'd never want to be if that's how they live.

>You should be able to offend and not have to deal with a
>massacre. The second we curtail our habits in attempt to
>appease a vocal lunatic minority we are fucked.

'curtail our habits' though?

i mean...maybe we'd curtail our habit just to not be assholes.

maybe we curtail our habit b/c it's the right thing to do. b/c it's the kind thing to do. b/c it's the considerate thing to do.

maybe knowing we have the right to do __ and the ability to do __ but choosing not to do __ b/c it's considerate and right and fair and all that makes us better than we'd be if we did __ just b/c we can though it's assholish and inconsiderate and thoughtless and mean-spirited and unnecessary.

lets say theres a magazine that makes its money by trumpeting caricatures of Blacks all over. just niggers & watermelons & coons buck jumping etc.

& its HELLA popular. people in the country LOVE it.

am *I* going to blow their offices up? no.
am *I* going to kill their writers? no.

but 20 yr old me damn sure would have thrown rocks thru windows

if someone DID fire bomb them...i wouldnt be sad.

if someone HAD killed all their staff...i wouldnt think oh god no freedom of speech

leave me the fuck alone. im not bothering you, all you got to do is NOT say nigga & you just cant stand the thought your freedom your PRECIOUS hypocritical freedom is impugned or stepped on in any way so much that you simply MUST have the right to say nigga

well theres some niggas that will wanna kill you for that. & im not mad @ em.

#sorrynotsorry

stop fucking w/ people who dont fuck w/ you


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

b/c i can't justify the violence there.

the magazine was wrong to publish the cartoons though it had the right to do so.

the violence against the magazine is abhorrent and inexcusable though understandable and somewhat predictable and entirely unforturnate and unacceptable.

i wouldnt do it. white folks can & have called me a nigger to my face, they still breathing

BUT!

not EVERY nigga is as peaceful as me...& if you run into the wrong nigga you will get the shit kicked out of you & no im not sorry it happened

thats what im saying


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

As wrong as they were the ppl at the magazine didn't deserve to be killed for their reprehensible conduct.

*shrugs*

>>You should be able to offend and not have to deal with a
>>massacre. The second we curtail our habits in attempt to
>>appease a vocal lunatic minority we are fucked.
>
>'curtail our habits' though?
>
>i mean...maybe we'd curtail our habit just to not be
>assholes.
>
>maybe we curtail our habit b/c it's the right thing to do.
>b/c it's the kind thing to do. b/c it's the considerate thing
>to do.
>
>maybe knowing we have the right to do __ and the ability to do
>__ but choosing not to do __ b/c it's considerate and right
>and fair and all that makes us better than we'd be if we did
>__ just b/c we can though it's assholish and inconsiderate and
>thoughtless and mean-spirited and unnecessary.
>

*Queues Lion King Broadway Soundtrack*

You're going to find plenty of societies, even today, with a shockingly low murder rate. you aren't going to find many with a shocking low asshole rate.

While I understand everyones points, there's a tinge of 'Too early?' to bring up the fact that they might have caused their own death, particularly since while on one hand you can argue that it was an egregiously offensive statement of the highest kind and also put up a good argument its just a silly cartoon.

the violence is infinitely disgusting and cannot be tolerated.

but all this talk of the magazine having the right to publish the cartoons and all that jazz is just sick to me. i mean, so what they had the right? it wasn't right.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/murdered-charlie-hebdo-editor-i-prefer-to-die-standing-up-than-live-on-my-knees/


Murdered Charlie Hebdo Editor: ‘I Prefer to Die Standing Up than Live on My Knees’
by Tina Nguyen | 11:00 am, January 7th, 2015 802

This morning, twelve staffers of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo were executed by alleged Islamist extremists in retaliation for their mocking of Islam — a longstanding practice of the magazine, given these defiant interviews with Charlie Hebdo editor Stéphane Charbonnier, who was murdered in this morning’s attacks.

“We didn’t feel like we could kill somebody with a pen,” he told Le Monde two years ago in a statement (loosely translated), explaining why he continued to publish outrageously controversial comics. “This may sound pompous, but I prefer to die standing up than live on my knees.”

“We publish caricatures every week, but people only describe them as declarations of war when it’s about the person of the Prophet or radical Islam,” Charbonnier, who commonly goes as “Charb,” told Der Spiegel in a longer interview shortly after their offices were destroyed in a fire in retaliation for a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad:

“Extremists don’t need any excuses,” he added. “We are only criticizing one particular form of extremist Islam, albeit in a peculiar and satirically exaggerated form. We are not responsible for the excesses that happen elsewhere, just because we practice our right to freedom of expression within the legal limits…

“If we worried about the consequences of each of our drawings in each of our 1,057 issues, then we would have had to close shop a long time ago.” Nevertheless, he is grateful for the protection of the police, who he says “politely and with concern” inquired about the contents of the new issue already while it was being printed. “It’s crazy,” says the cartoonist with a smile. “Of all publications, our magazine, which mocks the police at every opportunity, is now protected by it. Which only goes to show that freedom of speech is protected in our country.”

There will continue to be no taboos at Charlie Hebdo in the future. “It should be as normal to criticize Islam as it is to criticize Jews or Catholics,” Charbonnier says. Is he afraid of attacks or violence directed against him and his colleagues? “I have neither a wife nor children, not even a dog. But I’m not going to hide.”

Charbonnier’s comics landed him on an al Qaeda Most Wanted list years ago, along with Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

#salute

i am WAAAY more flagrant w/ the reparations shit here where theres @ least a semblance of anonymity & not on FB for example mainly because theres some white people out there who will fuck your credit up, get you fired, or worse because of that

this is real shit here.


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

you'll still have folks scream that it's not fair.

But there's a reason why in the Wild West it was also one of the more "polite" times in our society; if you offended a motherfucker, you would most assuredly catch a cap in that ass because everyone* carried...



"i wanna hug all u idiotic bastards & then set you all on fire" -Bin

www.twitter.com/bedstuybetty
http://bedstuybetty.tumblr.com/
DROkayplayer: Giving you good puff since May '05

What's with this culture of trolling? It's socially acceptable to say anything nowadays and violate.

The individuals that committed this heinous act deserve the maximum punishment.

okp seems to have a low opinion on the free exchange of ideas, which is odd considering that's what we do here.

They're oppressed - we're oppressed. You ain't. So you don't go where some of us took this. It makes sense to me.

I think I have it worked out, but I may still need some help.

Charlie Hebdo was wrong. The killers were wrong.

I am not a muslim, I am not a christian. But in situations like these (before the killing) I side with the muslims because they're the disenfranchised. I do not agree with those in power making fun of those without. You've already got your foot on their throat economically, politically, socially... We need no more of your "jokes."

At the same time, I don't think that the folks at Charlie Hebdo should be have been murdered.

I think I was having trouble at first because I hadn't inserted the power dynamics. Context is important.

So while my general viewpoint gives not a shit about Islam or Muhammad or anything. Muslims in the west are oppressed and by virtue of that, should not be antagonized of by their oppressors. Regardless of the fact that I disagree with (their) religion.

By the same token, I would have no problem with muslims (for example) making similar comics about Jesus... because of their social position. Power matters.

I looked at an article showing 21 "inspiring" pictures about the public response to this... Je Suis Charlie shit... and all I see is white faces. Not a single brown face. Which is interesting to me, because it seems to point to them saying "We want the freedom to be racist/xenophobic" which is what lead me to my thoughts about how power plays into this. If the response (murder) wasn't so extreme... would they still feel like they are Charlie? I would hope not... power dynamics...

Does my line of thinking make sense?

Religions arent races, they are lifestyles with a tendency to distort people's sense of right and wrong

How many people who weren't muslims do you think suffered in the post-911 world? Sihks, Hindus, Atheists, Even Christians... who "look" muslim were undoubtedly harassed and persecuted.

Muslims are a racialized religious group. As is every other "non-white" religion.

So in a vaccuum I would agree with you -- fuck, I'm an atheist. But context is essential. I above other things, side with the oppressed.

But my issue here isn't about religion. And that's where I was having a lot of cognitive dissonance. My issue is about POWER. The Muslims in this case are the disenfranchised.

And again... that doesn't mean I side with the killers though. I don't agree with their actions at all. But what I do have empathy for/with is Muslims and other disenfranchised people in France (and all over the world) -- and it's them who will be caught in the middle of this. Between the killers and (white) France stand innocent Muslims who will be the ones who pay the price for this.

Members of your "disenfranchised" religion has been killing "empowered" Christians in Iraq without any fear of reprisal.

So the idea of religious extremists as victims doesn't hold much water with me.

And we're talking about a context in France which is very different than the context in Iraq.

You can't pretend that things exist in a vacuum.

I disagree with Muslims in Iraq oppressing Christians. The power dynamics there are different, and as I said, I stand with the oppressed.

And it's not that the religious extremists are victims. Muslims in general in France (and The West) are. The extremists have a decidedly terrible way of dealing with things though, for which many many innocent muslims will be paying the price.

Please forgive all the edits. Like I said... I'm trying to work through this.

Im talking about the one thread that connects the two situations, and thats religious extremism. I dont think it deserves anything but scorn and isolation from the civilized world, regardless of context. Because in reality, each context is pretty much the same:

1) followers of a certain creation myth are in power

2) followers of different creation myths are not in power and are subject to the whims of those who are

3) Delusionally righteous violence ensues as people equip themselves with rage and millenial thinking

Thats it. No different context can change that. That is the nature of human religion, and has been for 5000 years.

So again, i will never understand the respect afforded to it.

The oppressed in France. The oppressed in Iraq. Wherever.
I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

I do not agree with the murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. I am not excusing that. I disagree with it. I condemn those actions. But the crux of what I'm saying is not about the killers. It's about the context in which this happens.

That context is one in which the Muslim community is an oppressed and disenfranchised group. Those oppressing them insist on further antagonizing them. I think that is wrong. The cartoons, to me, are not wrong because of their content (I give no fucks about Muhammad. I give no fucks about the leader of ISIL), but wrong because of who they target. The cartoons represent the racist and xenophobic attitude of the oppressors. Fuck that. They are not "innocents." By that I mean, they were not "just people, doing their jobs, hurting no one."

But they are people, and I don't think they should be murdered. That was not just. It would have been just for them to lose their jobs (for example), but their deaths were not just.

So I do not stand with those saying "Je Suis Charlie" because as I explained, Charlie Hebdo represents racism and xenophobia under the guise of free speech.

I do not stand with the killers.

But I do stand with the oppressed.

I do understand your point about religious extremism and agree to an extent. But religious extremism isn't the only thing that causes the situations you describe. Race. Class. Gender. Tribalism. Homophobia. Xenophobia... they all (can) result in that. Which is again why I side with the oppressed.

are under the foot of whitey over there.

do you not know?

are you so unaware that you really think the cartoons are the only oppression they're dealing with?

or are you just being flippant b/c you're frustrated by today's events and this conversation?

b/c i've been flippant and dismissive and on that fuck whitey shit b/c i'm frustrated by this conversation.

>are under the foot of whitey over there.
>
>do you not know?

Not sure exactly what you're referring to, but France doesn't seem like a great place to be a Muslim.

>are you so unaware that you really think the cartoons are the
>only oppression they're dealing with?

Which other oppression did murdering cartoonists solve?

>or are you just being flippant b/c you're frustrated by
>today's events and this conversation?

I'm being flippant because I don't give a shit about the oppression of anyone who would murder a journalist or cartoonist. And if anyone interprets a cartoon as oppression I don't give a shit about them either.

>b/c i've been flippant and dismissive and on that fuck whitey
>shit b/c i'm frustrated by this conversation.

i can tell.

You do not understand the experience of oppressed people. You do not understand the experiences of people of color, of women, of glbtq folks.

The cartoons do not exist in a vacuum.

i get it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNiAOSKFNR4

http://www.timwise.org/2010/02/racism-and-the-myth-of-a-victim-mentality/

Not that you'll read this, but know that what you're saying is classic white supremacy.

and i can think you have no integrity and are making bullshit excuses for murdering someone over a cartoon.

and neither of us wants to drive to each other's workplace and murder the other over it.

wow! free speech is great!

I have condemned it at every chance.

You however are not an ally of people of color, or women, or glbtq folks, or oppressed people in general. You have shown such by using language like "victim mentality." Common from people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reily. I know you don't wanna think you're one of them. But you are.

Good day.

mitigating murder. Your "murder is wrong, but. . ." bullshit is an excuse, not a condemnation.

And when you empathize with murderers of cartoonists because those cartoons "don't exist in a vacuum" you're saying that an oppressed people have understandable reasons to commit horrific violence against cartoonists who might belittle them because their lives are otherwise shitty, and that's a weak ass victim mentality. Boohoo I'm a victim I can't be expected to conform to basic standards of humanity because I'm oppressed.

Sorry you can't see the difference in my use of that phrase and your conservative windbag of the day, but that's on you.

I've stated numerous times that i do not condone the murder, that it's wrong, that it's reprehensible, that there is no place for it.

You keep being white though.

And you are also exhibiting racism by calling out his perceived "whiteness" to defend yourself.

Keep it moving, you lost.

that's not what he is saying at all

and calling out whiteness, the intellectual and cultural expression of white supremacy in the day to day is not racism, it's called analysis.

but you are a lout

this will be my last reply to you

what exactly did i say that is not valid?

admitting that the magazine was wrong to publish the cartoons doesn't mean we think the magazine staff deserved to be killed. saying we understand the root of the violence doesn't mean we excuse it. it just means we can place it in context. we see the bigger picture. we're not left just wringing our hands and wondering WHY this happened. we have some idea why it happened. and it shouldn't have happened.

those terrorists should've found another way to express their anger at the cartoons. shooting up the joint was not the way.

and damn...it's so white of the 'Je Suis Charlie' crowd to get on that freedom of expression bullshit and to agree w/Charlie that they shouldn't ever censor themselves b/c fuck the feelings and experiences of oppressed ppl. like, wow.

thankfully whitey is more in check here in the USA.

like, whitey could be on TV right now in blackface. all over the dial in that shit. whitey has the RIGHT to do that. why doesn't whitey do that here? b/c whitey gets that it's not RIGHT to go there.

that's what Charlie and the rest of those who support the mag need to understand. just b/c the mag has the right to be awful doesn't mean it's right to be awful. in fact, i think it makes them better ppl and they get to be even more suprema .. i mean, superior if they do censor themselves in consideration of others. especially in consideration of the downtrodden. but they don't b/c...hate. and it's naked and sickening.

>and damn...it's so white of the 'Je Suis Charlie' crowd to get
>on that freedom of expression bullshit and to agree w/Charlie
>that they shouldn't ever censor themselves b/c fuck the
>feelings and experiences of oppressed ppl. like, wow.

that's your level of discourse right now.

The ideal of supporting Charlie isn't agreeing with their viewpoint in their publications or saying "fuck the feelings of oppressed people" it's supporting the idea that your ability to say even the most offensive thing shouldn't be curbed by a fear of armed assailants storming your workplace.

"Freedom of expression bullshit." From a lawyer. In response to people being murdered over the viewpoint of a cartoon.

b/c it's clear we won't agree and the more we talk about this the less respect i have for you, generally.

so no more epithets unless you issue them.

i'm done.

the more we talk about this
>the less respect i have for you, generally.

likewise.

>admitting that the magazine was wrong to publish the cartoons
>doesn't mean we think the magazine staff deserved to be
>killed. saying we understand the root of the violence doesn't
>mean we excuse it. it just means we can place it in context.
>we see the bigger picture. we're not left just wringing our
>hands and wondering WHY this happened. we have some idea why
>it happened. and it shouldn't have happened.
>
>those terrorists should've found another way to express their
>anger at the cartoons. shooting up the joint was not the way.
>
>
>and damn...it's so white of the 'Je Suis Charlie' crowd to get
>on that freedom of expression bullshit and to agree w/Charlie
>that they shouldn't ever censor themselves b/c fuck the
>feelings and experiences of oppressed ppl. like, wow.
>
>thankfully whitey is more in check here in the USA.
>
>like, whitey could be on TV right now in blackface. all over
>the dial in that shit. whitey has the RIGHT to do that. why
>doesn't whitey do that here? b/c whitey gets that it's not
>RIGHT to go there.
>
>that's what Charlie and the rest of those who support the mag
>need to understand. just b/c the mag has the right to be
>awful doesn't mean it's right to be awful. in fact, i think
>it makes them better ppl and they get to be even more suprema
>.. i mean, superior if they do censor themselves in
>consideration of others. especially in consideration of the
>downtrodden. but they don't b/c...hate. and it's naked and
>sickening.
>

If people can't understand this, they never will.

of the relation of force that make these things possible

And he keeps trying to shove a telescope in my face

Freedom from criticism and mocking of dogmatic ideology is a laughable concept, and the cartoons were obviously aimed at Muslims who have more in common with oppressors than the oppressed.

Just as he shouldnt have to publically announce that he does not condone murder (which i never once accused him of), i shouldnt have to declare my opposition towards religious and racial persecution before proceeding to the aspect of the story I am most interested in.

i understand

>The oppressed in France. The oppressed in Iraq. Wherever.
>I don't know how to be any clearer than that.
>
>I do not agree with the murder of the Charlie Hebdo
>cartoonists. I am not excusing that. I disagree with it. I
>condemn those actions. But the crux of what I'm saying is not
>about the killers. It's about the context in which this
>happens.
>
>That context is one in which the Muslim community is an
>oppressed and disenfranchised group. Those oppressing them
>insist on further antagonizing them. I think that is wrong.
>The cartoons, to me, are not wrong because of their content (I
>give no fucks about Muhammad. I give no fucks about the leader
>of ISIL), but wrong because of who they target. The cartoons
>represent the racist and xenophobic attitude of the
>oppressors. Fuck that. They are not "innocents." By that I
>mean, they were not "just people, doing their jobs, hurting no
>one."
>
>But they are people, and I don't think they should be
>murdered. That was not just. It would have been just for them
>to lose their jobs (for example), but their deaths were not
>just.
>
>So I do not stand with those saying "Je Suis Charlie" because
>as I explained, Charlie Hebdo represents racism and xenophobia
>under the guise of free speech.
>
>I do not stand with the killers.
>
>But I do stand with the oppressed.
>
>I do understand your point about religious extremism and agree
>to an extent. But religious extremism isn't the only thing
>that causes the situations you describe. Race. Class. Gender.
>Tribalism. Homophobia. Xenophobia... they all (can) result in
>that. Which is again why I side with the oppressed.
>
>

"satirized"

also, if you don't see the role that race has played in the oppression of large segments of the Muslim World, you just haven't been paying attention.

I'm sure they're getting it there too.

I still feel like I'm trying to work through it.
So although you've already posted in here a bunch, please feel free to share any more of your thoughts. I respect the fuck outta your opinion.

The power dynamic at issue here matters to me more than the magazine's right to publish the cartoons. I'm more worried about the safety and health of French Muslims than I am about the sanctity freedom of expression in France. Bc I stand with the disenfranchised and oppressed.

to Muslim nations, to free millions of Muslims suffering under disenfranchising and corrupt Muslim law.

That would be a good start for you and the plight you are fighting. Or you could just throw rocks at a satirical magazine in a nation that provides 5 million Muslims with health care, education, and opportunity. Choice is yours.

You inspire me.

No one.

That's not what we're talking about. Not even close.

Why do people refuse to understand context around here?

Provides healthcare, education, and opportunity... just like the US does for blacks, right? US blacks aren't oppressed at all, right?

I am pointing out the hypocrisy in killing innocent people over a cartoon, but being totally okay with running entire nations into utter ruin, with the exact same religion they are supposedly protecting. Think about that for a minute.

Show me.

look at what he is writing

do not waste intellectual energy of people like him, ever

you don't see any Muslim terrorists fighting Muslim extremists, but, they will target innocent artists.


the hypocrisy stinks.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-01-07/now-is-the-time-to-stop-and-think-about-what-satire-really-means

Now Is the Time to Stop and Think About What Satire Really Means

In the wake of the horrific shootings in Paris, everyone is talking the Charlie Hebdo talk. But will we walk the satirical walk?

Will Leitch

“Satire is what closes on Saturday,” satirist George S. Kaufman wrote, satirically. It is worth unpacking what this quote really means. Ostensibly, it means that when you choose the rapier of satire rather than the comforting swaddle of mass entertainment, you are limiting your audience in a self-sabotaging matter: While you’re busy finding yourself clever, the crowd has moved on to giggle along with cute kittens singing catchy songs. Satire is satisfying, but generally speaking, the only people listening are the person doing the satirizing and those who already care enough to agree with him. Most people ignore him, or, if they do anything at all, call him a jerk.

In the wake of today’s tragic terrorist attack in Paris, which killed 12 people including top cartoonists at satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, the word “satire” has taken on its own power, its very existence a rejoinder to hatred, a founding pillar of Our Way Of Life. It is being cast as noble. But this is not how we usually see satire. Satire is usually a pain in the ass. Satire exists to discomfit the comfortable, to slaughter sacred cows, to puncture the illusion that we all live in a “polite” society. Satire is crude, and rowdy, and often self-aggrandizing: Satire is meant to call attention to itself in any way possible. Charlie Hebdo was particularly skilled at this: One cover, actually supporting the French law banning Muslim women from wearing burqas, featured a woman wearing a burqa … somewhere other than her head. Good satire is a little gross and cares not of taste. You want people to think … and you’re not against using a good dick joke to do it. Satire attempts, by its very nature, to shake people to alert.

But, mostly, people don’t like to be shaken to alert. They just want to go along with their day. They care a lot less about freedom of expression than they do freedom to go about their lives in peace. You’ve seen a lot of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo today, a strong defense of satire as a way of life. But it is worth noting that most publications aren’t showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. And it is also worth noting that Americans—the people supposedly so proud of their freedom of expression—haven’t always been on the side of the angels here. South Park’s attempts to show a cartoon of Muhammad were famously censored by Comedy Central—in an episode that explicitly stated that the lesson everybody learned was “the best way to get what you want is to threaten other people with violence”—and the Metropolitan Museum of Art quietly removed all images of Muhammad from its halls five years ago. Even when Charlie Hebdo was firebombed four years ago, Time Paris bureau chief Bruce Crumley wrote that it was “hard to have much sympathy” for the magazine and that “insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile.”

The offense is the defense of the way of life.

Charlie Hebdo would respond, “of course it is.” If you’re not being obnoxious or offensive, what are you even doing? One image shared in the wake of the attack today was an old cartoon from The Onion that showed, ahem, “an image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist.” (It’s quite the image!) The joke here, of course, is that those religions don’t attack those who show their gods in cartoon form … but that is also what makes the joke, and the image, ultimately sort of toothless. (While certainly inventive.) After all: You didn’t, actually, see Muhammad in that Onion picture. Obviously not. Who wants that heat?

But: If no one is offended, then what is the point? It’s all self-congratulatory faux enlightenment with no conviction behind it. It’s a back pat for “getting it,” without actually risking anything. The offense is the point. The offense is the defense of the way of life. Charlie Hebdo fought for—and its cartoonists and writers and editors and police protectors ultimately died for—the right to piss people off without regard of taste or civilized society or what you or anyone else thought of them. We all stand with them today. But will we stand with them tomorrow? Did Sony Pictures and those theater chains stand with them two weeks ago? Does Comedy Central, and the Met, stand with them now? We live in an open society—free, among other things, to be timid. It is encouraging to see the world embracing Charlie Hebdo’s principles of satire and aggressive engagement with extremists today. But I can’t help but fear this show’s gonna close by Saturday.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/former-onion-editor-freedom-speech-cannot-be-killed


Former ‘Onion’ editor: Freedom of speech cannot be killed

By Joe Randazzo

When I was editor there, The Onion was located in the heart of Manhattan and the one person manning our front entrance was our petite, tattooed office manager, Jessie. She was the definition of unthreatening, and we used to joke that she was the only thing standing between us and some heavily armed radicals, should any ever become enraged by something we put in print. Right now, that joke makes me sick to my stomach.

Twelve people were murdered at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, today, apparently for doing the very thing The Onion does: satire. These people – including one guest and one police officer – are dead. They were cartoonists and editors and humorists. People whose job in life was to point at hypocrisy and laugh at it; to ridicule hate; to make us all try to see our own failings as humans. And they were killed for it.

For those who would trivialize the idea, this was what an actual attack on freedom looks like.

Our joke at The Onion was, like most of our jokes, borne out of some reality. We received hateful letters and emails on a semi-regular basis. I’ve personally spoken on the phone with at least two individuals who threatened to rape me and kill my family. At one point, we even had to call the police. But I never could have imagined anything like this.

Related: Shooting at Paris magazine kills 12, manhunt underway

I admit: it scares me. This is radical ideology taken to an abhorrent new low. The footage and photographs that have so far emerged depict several armed men, dressed in tactical black. It looks like a highly organized attack, but an attack, ultimately, on what? An idea? You cannot kill an idea by murdering innocent people – though you can nudge it toward suicide.

That is the real threat: that we’ll allow our fear, or our anger, to kill ourselves.

“You cannot kill an idea by murdering innocent people — though you can nudge it toward suicide.”
Joe Randazzo
This will be framed by many as the latest salvo in an ongoing war between the West and Islam, when what this really amounts to is the slaughter of innocent people. These murderers don’t represent anyone but themselves, their own twisted view of reality. They don’t stand for an entire religion anymore than the Westboro Baptist Church stands for an entire religion or the Ku Klux Klan stands for an entire race.

If it turns out that members of Al Qaeda or some other radical “Islamic” sect carried out this attack, the saddest, most profoundly ironic thing about it will have been that the satire worked. It did its job. It so threatened its target, cut so deeply at the truth, that it resorted to the most cowardly, most offensive and despicable form of lashing out.

Satire must always accompany any free society. It is an absolute necessity. Even in the most repressive medieval kingdoms, they understood the need for the court jester, the one soul allowed to tell the truth through laughter. It is, in many ways, the most powerful form of free speech because it is aimed at those in power, or those whose ideas would spread hate. It is the canary in the coalmine, a cultural thermometer, and it always has to push, push, push the boundaries of society to see how much it’s grown.

Photos: Paris mourns after Charlie Hebdo attack

Our society is possibly the freest that humankind has yet produced and that freedom is predicated on one central idea: the right to speech. That right is understood as a natural extension of our very existence. In America, free speech is so important that the men who wrote our Bill of Rights put it first, but followed it up with our right to bear arms. To me, that’s always been a pretty strong message: Say what you want and, here, take some guns to make sure no one tries to stop you. But in this state of widespread social change – probably the most profound in centuries – we need to make sure that the ideal of the second amendment never, ever trumps the power of the first. That brute force never negates ideas.

This is a loss for all of humanity. The victims, people who believed with passion and intellect that humankind can be better, were struck down in the birthplace of the Enlightenment, the movement from which the modern world emanates.

The Charlie Hebdo gunmen also shot a police officer in the head as he lay dying on the sidewalk. These people are not just enemies of cartoonists or the ideals of the West. They’re enemies of human life. They care for nothing, believe in nothing worth believing in, and therefore their ideology, whatever it may be, is worthless. Moot. Not even worth our consideration for a moment.

“We cannot, should not, police our own thoughts – or the thoughts of our fellow citizens.”
Joe Randazzo
They cannot kill everyone who disagrees with them. There are not enough bullets in the world for that. The most responsible thing we can do is be aware that the most likely threat to freedom will now come from within. We cannot, should not, police our own thoughts – or the thoughts of our fellow citizens. Because the First Amendment does not just protect our free speech; it protects all expression, including religion.

Nor can we lose sight of terrorism in any of its forms. Whether it comes from radicals abroad or radicals at home. No matter what ideas they try to kill on whatever end of the political spectrum.

Before we lose our sense of optimism, however, try to keep some scale in mind: The idea of human rights is a relatively new one to human society, only a few hundred years old. It’s a part of our intellectual outlook now, inextricable from our daily lives, but it is still making its way into our hearts, our DNA. I can only hope that tragedies like the one in Paris would make our ideals stronger, not weaker.

Is that an ideal worth dying for? I think it is. Should anyone ever have to pay for it with blood? I pray to God not. And it doesn’t really matter that I don’t quite know how to believe in God. Today, I’m praying anyway.

Freedom of speech does not free you from responsibility and the consequences of said free speech.

As a child you have the right to curse your mom or pops out and say what ever the fuck you want to them, but know that they will probably beat the shit out of you.

I don't get how some people don't understand this concept.




_____________________________________________________
miserable niggas yo
cant let nobody have nothing
"god save the queen pip pip cheerio tea time princess di" ass niggas (c)white desus

and don't see premeditated murder as an acceptable human response to cartoons.


>I don't get how some people don't understand this concept.

^^^

tacitly deems the reaction acceptable.

about the horror of extremism or the value of free expression. Bc now the conversation is all fucked up and is tainted by our various hate - for whitey, France, Islam, religion, Arabs.... It's all fucked up now.

and like a human being you're expressing that opinion with words.

the people they disrespected illustrated their worthiness of that disrespect because rather than express a concurring opinion with words they carried out a cowardly premeditated murder.

maybe it was the perfect way to have the conversation.

.

If I say it isnt a good idea to joke the bully because he will punch you in your eye and you joke him and get a black eye.

Telling you "thats what you get" doesnt mean I condone violence.

It means I have witnessed him in action before and know how he reacts to jokes.

Not one person talking that "should have expected that" has acknowledged that the fact it should have been expected is, quite frankly, the most disgusting part of the whole affair

How is the existence of people who will kill over cartoons NOT absolutely disgusting? Everyone is in a rush to condemn the act, and even condemn the actions of the paper. Why is no one condemning the *mindset* of these murderers?

I'm an atheist and I'm not at all in agreement that Islam is to be blamed for the violence. Islam abhors violence. This violence is not Islam.

Im talking about the idea that somehow religious extremist violence gets a ho hum shrug as part of the acceptible parameters of life

Fuck and kill whitey.

Bc I'm sick of white ppl not standing up and challenging Europe's treatment of Muslims and Arabs and Africans. I can't deal. Fuck that magazine.

You are acting like Charlie and them worked for IBM.

They worked extremely hard at their jobs and dedicated their lives to provoking the people who attacked them.

seriously. I could not believe how many times I had to type out the fact that the murders are wrong.

Its not about the idea that murder is wrong. I know you dont condone murder, and if you think im insinuating that, you are flat incorrect.

Its about the fact that religion gives people enough self righteousness to murder without reservation, and that most people in this post accept that fact as a given and glide right past it.

I am not saying "but but but murder!"

Im saying that the mentality that allows people to kill, and then feel like they have acted according to the cosmic plan, was being accepted as a given in the post and then forgot about, without any critical attention paid to it.

For the umpteenth time im not talking about how murder is bad

Im talking about the mentality that leads some to believe that murder is good, as long as its done in the name of one's mythological creator. Im also talking about the idea that CH should have known that the people who would take offense to their work hold the first idea in regard. Finally im talking about how crazy it is that all the second idea was advanced without any critical attention paid to the first idea.

What a terrible shallow analogy.

You honestly just compared the dynamic between children and the adults responsible for raising them, to a mass murder by religious extremists?

Ill say it again and i am fully prepared to deal with the consequences: you're a fucking idiot.

>
>I don't get how some people don't understand this concept.
>

Thank you. People go so hard for the right to fuck with and disrespect people. I really don't get it.

or to death...
are we still talking about the child's responsibility in his beating?

>Freedom of speech does not free you from responsibility and
>the consequences of said free speech.
>
>As a child you have the right to curse your mom or pops out
>and say what ever the fuck you want to them, but know that
>they will probably beat the shit out of you.
>
>I don't get how some people don't understand this concept.

Victim blaming is just as ridiculous here as anywhere else.

the "consequences" as in being criticized or disagreed with or even openly lambasted by the public, no. from being detained, imprisoned, tortured, injured or killed? yes. i mean, you are protected from those things as a the consequence of ANYTHING, being secure in your person is a right in pretty much every society, certainly any halfway modern one.

Like 75% of the posts have a "well, they had it coming" type of tone.
Def didn't expect that when I clicked

and ISIS on religious ones.

it's never ok, except when it's ok

But this was really bad

SoWhat called a cartoon making fun of violent religious extremists "reprehensible"

>SoWhat called a cartoon making fun of violent religious
>extremists "reprehensible"

is not "making fun of violent religious extremists."

It's directly spitting in the face of ALL Muslims, even the most benign amongst them.

I think it's fair to describe it as "reprehensible."

sending children to war, destroying the economy, health care and education, and taking away basic human rights.

Is that reprehensible?

Because you will find a great deal of that in Islamic countries that will never publish a satirical picture.

Which is worse?

But that's not the issue here.

Stop throwing in distractions.

Muslim terrorists killing innocent people because of a cartoon, but they have no issue running entire nations into the ground with war, death, and oppression.

Seems like they need to get their priorities straight.

Point it out. Quote people.

That is a different fucking discussion.
No one agrees with that shit, but that is not what we are talking about right now.

Stop posting.

We're better without you.

No need to get emotional or to attack me. Yes I know this is a polarizing conversation but let's cool down for a second.

If I am a Muslim that wants to protect Islamic rights and the oppressed, is it better for me to work towards progress in my own country, which is in utter ruin, or to kill innocent people in a foreign nation which provides opportunity, health care, and education for 5 million people.

Yes, the Muslim's in France are not living in a total heaven, but, they are far better off than their people. Why are the terrorists so concerned over trivial things like cartoons but do not fight for people in their home nations? Really, just think about that for a minute.

It's analogous to if we were having a discussion about police gunning down unarmed black youth, expressing the opinion that this was an undesirable state of affairs that we'd like to see remedied, and you came in and said

"Well, what about all the black gangbangers who shoot each other every weekend in the city? Which one is worse?"

Yes. It is a distraction. It is disingenuous. It is, above all, a terrible argument.

Talk about the issue at hand or GTFO

>It's analogous to if we were having a discussion about police
>gunning down unarmed black youth, expressing the opinion that
>this was an undesirable state of affairs that we'd like to see
>remedied, and you came in and said
>

There is no doubt black Americans are oppressed, however, you don't see any Black activists killing innocent people in response, especially in a nation which is thousands of miles away.


>"Well, what about all the black gangbangers who shoot each
>other every weekend in the city? Which one is worse?"

Ugh.

>
>Yes. It is a distraction. It is disingenuous. It is, above
>all, a terrible argument.
>
>Talk about the issue at hand or GTFO


You are missing the point and over simplifying it because it would be impossible for you to argue it. I get it.

Just think about this for a second: Why are terrorists targeting innocent people thousands of miles away over trivial deeds, when they could take their war and fight for millions of their own people at home?

Ask yourself why.

A cartoon that offends their mythological sensibilities doeant fall under that heading

The glory and romance of the American flag is just as mythological but I recognize that it's something some Americans feel deeply.

I don't give a shit about it personally but I let them cook, for the most part. I'd think publicly defecating on the Stars & Stripes for the sole purpose of going "U mad, bro?" is just as reprehensible.

But say, flag burning, is not

>The glory and romance of the American flag is just as
>mythological but I recognize that it's something some
>Americans feel deeply.
>
>I don't give a shit about it personally but I let them cook,
>for the most part. I'd think publicly defecating on the Stars
>& Stripes for the sole purpose of going "U mad, bro?" is just
>as reprehensible.

The idea of intelligent satire vs being plain reprehensible is a matter of personal judgement and taste. I find Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher reprehensible on account of my religion pretty regularly.

There are plenty of things out there I could get into a huff over if I didn't recognise the reality that people don't have to respect my religious beliefs in the same way that I do, as long as they don't intrude on my religious freedom in the process. But if I wasn't that way, and got violent as a result, would there still be room for those sorts of comments?

You mean would I state numerous times that I think killing them is wrong and barbaric?


Yes.

>You mean would I state numerous times that I think killing
>them is wrong and barbaric?
>
>
>Yes.

That has not been the entirety of what you've said in here in response to these killings.

Guess your reaction wouldn't be equal then.

>Guess your reaction wouldn't be equal then.

I'm not a fan of South Park but then making cartoons ribbing Jesus in America is a very different situation from mocking Mahomet in France. For a number of reasons. But mostly, it's not "punching down" in the way these French guys were doing.

You should have asked me perhaps how I would have felt if someone murdered the producers of Birth of a Nation.

(Nah... even that is not good enough of an example...)

>>Guess your reaction wouldn't be equal then.
>
>I'm not a fan of South Park but then making cartoons ribbing
>Jesus in America is a very different situation from mocking
>Mahomet in France. For a number of reasons. But mostly, it's
>not "punching down" in the way these French guys were doing.
>
>You should have asked me perhaps how I would have felt if
>someone murdered the producers of Birth of a Nation.
>
>(Nah... even that is not good enough of an example...)


I agree their actions are reprehensible. But if context is everything, so is context of the cartoonists being offensive to, well, pretty much everyone. They don't just punch down. It's as much a case of entitled, condescending atheism as racism.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/paris-attack-suspect-dead-two-custody-n281761

Paris Attack Suspect Dead, Two in Custody
BY PETE WILLIAMS, M. ALEX JOHNSON AND JON SCHUPPE

One of the suspects in the Paris attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine has been killed and the two others are in custody, two senior U.S. counterterrorism officials told NBC News.

Authorities identified the three men as Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, both French and in their early 30s, and 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, whose nationality wasn't immediately clear.

One of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to publicly discuss the investigation, told The Associated Press that the men were linked to a Yemeni terrorist network. And Cherif Kouachi was convicted in 2008 of terrorism charges for helping funnel fighters to Iraq's insurgency and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Twelve people were killed in the attack by gunmen, armed with AK-47s, who attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a publication that has enraged Muslims for publishing cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. On their way in, they killed a maintenance worker, then stormed into an editorial meeting, where they killed eight journalists, including Stephane Charbonnier, the magazine's editorial director, and Bank of France economist Bernard Maris, a columnist. A security officer and a guest were also gunned down. As they fled, they killed a second police officer.

Eleven other people were injured, four of them critically, officials said.

Because the masked, black-clad gunmen attacked with militaristic precision and left the scene with shouts of "Allahu Akbar," the killers were suspected to be well-trained Islamic extremists.

Little information was immediately available about Mourad and Said Kouachi, but Cherif Kouachi has been suspected of involvement in terrorist groups for at least a decade. In January 2005, he and another French national were arrested in Paris as they were planning to fly to Iraq via Syria. Kouachi was described at the time as one of two deputies to the leader of an operation to send young volunteers to Iraq to fight U.S.-led forces.

Authorities linked the operation to the 19th Arrondissement Network, named for the Paris district where it was based, which is home to many Muslim families with roots in France's former North African colonies. Kouachi was sentenced to three years in prison, 18 months of which were suspended.

The Associated Press quoted Cherif Kouachi in 2008 as saying he'd been motivated by outrage at images of torture of Iraqi inmates at the U.S. prison at Abu Ghraib. "I really believed in the idea," it quoted him as saying.

While authorities hunted the suspects Wednesday, shock and mourning spread across Paris and the rest of France, a country with an estimated 5 million Muslims. France has a long, troubled relationship with its Arab immigrants and a more recent history of unrest among young native-born Muslims. There has been growing concern about young men and women returning to France after joining jihadist activity in the Middle East.

Thousands of Parisians took to the streets in spontaneous and defiant demonstrations of unity. They lighted candles and held signs declaring "Je Suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie") in reference to the magazine. At the Place de la Republique, they crammed themselves up onto the monument in the middle of the square and chanted "Charlie! Liberty!" Candles, posters and signs covered the three statues representing Liberty, Equality and Fraternity — the bedrock of French values.

"They want to scare French citizens and prohibit any criticism of religion, so here we are to remind them that religion can be freely criticized," said Sasha Reingewirtz, 28, president of the Jewish Students Union.

President Francois Hollande declared Thursday a day of national mourning and called for a minute of silence at noon. Flags will fly at half-staff for three days. The government raised its terrorism threat level to its highest grade and announced that security forces would be deployed at media outlets, major shopping venues, sites of religious worship and transportation networks in the Paris region.

Robert Windrem, Nancy Ing and Ed Kiernan of NBC News contributed to this report.

It seems that many of you are under the impression that Muslims are leaving bastions of freedom and equality to go live under the harsh and disenfranchising law of oppression.

Muslim nations are riddled with corruption, inequality, and barbarism. Millions have no access to education, health care, or law.

A nation like France offers everything Muslim countries cannot: Health care, opportunity, and stability. I suppose a nation whose sense of humor is too crass to accommodate religious sensibilities is far worse than the Oasis of Love and Equality that most Muslims are fleeing.

Yes, fuck Charlie for stripping women of their humanity and stoning or burning them alive, for using children in suicide bombings, for rampant killings and executions. For running entire nations into the ground with war. Fuck Charlie!!

nm

What do you think is a more effective and promising future for Muslims?

To kill innocent cartoon makers, or to fight for rights in your own home nations where millions suffer on a daily basis?

Which is a better solution in your opinion?

So Mexican-Americans should be cool with their mistreatment in the United States, because Mexicans are being murdered in Sinaloa.
Got it.

You're not worth talking to.

What?

Okay, I guess we are done. :) Good day to you. I will say I find it puzzling that you do not see the hypocrisy in terrorists killing innocent people to protect the oppressed, but allowing oppression to continue in their home countries.

lol

to muslims.

Just like the US is HOME to Mexicans.

The terrorists killed innocent people OVER A CARTOON.

They did not do it to fight oppression.

I'll wait while that sinks in.

After that sinks in, consider that killing people OVER A CARTOON while your home nations are driven into ruin by your OWN RELIGION, and YOUR OWN PEOPLE, exposes the terrorists to be nothing short of insane morons which you validate with your nonsense and drivel.

Good day.

Meanwhile, I'd bet that all the killers were born and bred in France.

Your continued insistence upon alienating them (and I mean that in the sense of "treating them like aliens in the country of their birth") is part of the problem that's being pointed out here.

To bad you're just too determined not to see it.

Clearly, that has not sunk in for you yet.

There was no message attached to the killings which stated that the terrorists were fighting against oppression.

Secondly, the Muslims in France enjoy a far better life than many people across the globe.

Finally, many Muslim nations suffer under the brutality of Islamic law, as interpreted by Muslim men. Millions are suffering, BUT, you are in here defending the oppressed in France, which are HARDLY oppressed compared to their brethren at home.

If these insane individuals had any sense or sensibility, they would be fighting the warlords and criminals which are destroying their people. If they truly cared about the oppressed they would not be shooting French cartoonists. I don't understand how you don't see that.

Every time someone responds to your inane questions with a rational answer, you immediately try to change the focus, usually to an emotional appeal.

There was a reason why I said earlier that we are done talking. I'm going back to position.

Talk about THIS situation...

We know radicals killing 12 people doesnt help Muslims around the world but that wasn't their objective.

They wanted to kill Charlie and they succeeded. Charlie and company wanted to piss off radicals and they succeeded.

i mean there's nothing irreconcilable about wanting better conditions for muslims living in the arab world and muslims living in europe is there?

we don't believe in it at all

- noam chomsky

There you go...

we do have to intellectually also understand freedom comes with a price...

cuz...

niggas are crazy

lol/smh @ you wackjobs talking "admirable conviction" nonsense.

the gunmen were absolutely in the wrong.

those who published the cartoons were absolutely in their full right to. Barbers cut hair. Plumbers fix leaks. Chefs cook food. Cartoonists/Satirists make fun of people/places/ideologies.

cant believe this has to be explained.

this reminds me of Triptychs archived cartoon post.

http://i.imgur.com/TTxos79.jpg

Is completely within their rights, are they not?
Does that make it right?
Does that mean we have to stand for it?

No one is condoning murder. That's obviously wrong and reprehensible. Everyone gets that. But we cannot ignore the conditions under which it happened.

I'm done in here.

He stated upfront that he recognizes the person who made that cartoon is within his rights.

But is he "right"? Could the cartoon be considered harmful? Could it be interpreted as an attack?

Who here has advocated for a law against the cartoon?
Freedom of speech is about the government being able to control/punish/imprison.
So, the comic that I posted, should the US government imprison the person who made it? No.

Should they have made it? No.

But I take the side of the oppressed, so I understand and support them, but I don't agree with the murder, I just support them.

>Who here has advocated for a law against the cartoon?
>Freedom of speech is about the government being able to
>control/punish/imprison.
>So, the comic that I posted, should the US government imprison
>the person who made it? No.
>
>Should they have made it? No.

You know that right? You know that they're but an extreme minority of an oppressed group, right?

Stop dragging in your fantasy driven revolutionary ideas into this. Stick to facts.

>Who here has advocated for a law against the cartoon?

no one, but everyone saying "..but did you see what they did to warrant such a response?!" is absolutely missing the point.

>Freedom of speech is about the government being able to
>control/punish/imprison.

>So, the comic that I posted, should the US government imprison
>the person who made it? No.

agreed.

>Should they have made it? No.

no, but they have every right to, without being afraid that someone is going to burst into their place of work, and mow them down with a machine gun.

>no, but they have every right to, without being afraid that
>someone is going to burst into their place of work, and mow
>them down with a machine gun.

Make no mistake, they shouldn't have to fear ANYBODY bursting in... but no, there's no constitutional right that guarantees that.

it from symbolic, cultural, legislative, political, and social levels

why

it's discourse. that's like, the whole point.

if you feel trampled on don't read those words. or write words in opposition.

So obviously they feel that you CAN be trampled over by words over there.

Not suggesting that what Charlie engaged in was hate speech (even though I believe they did get dragged to court for that) just pointing out that your portrait of the context is off the mark.

which is the direction I intended that to go.

But i also dont hold dogmatic ideology in high enough regard to think that an intellectual (not to mean advanced in thought, but via the avenue of words and ideas) attack on it constitutes a violation of the human rights of the believers.

that's why this convo is difficult

especially for those of us who come from communities/racialized groups that have experienced these types of representations in America

fuck these fools taking guns to folk for cartoons, fuck em

just like we said fuck the dude who killed them two cops in NY

but like there and here, i just hope we don't lose sight that when we tolerate ignorance and brutality on physical AND symbolic levels, pieces of shit like these gun men are used to nullify debate and justify the necessity of intolerance.

these assholes weren't freedom fighters and I hope folks, at least didn't see anyone here, saying they were fighting the power. they weren't.

Your concern lies with the murderers. And there's cause for that.

My concern, though, is not with them at all. They did some fucked up, foul, inhumane shit. The end.

My concern is with the millions upon millions of other Muslims in France who have to deal with Charlie Hebdo's shit day after day on top of all the other social, political, and economic oppression they deal with.

Does that make sense?




>>Who here has advocated for a law against the cartoon?
>
>no one, but everyone saying "..but did you see what they did
>to warrant such a response?!" is absolutely missing the
>point.
>
>>Freedom of speech is about the government being able to
>>control/punish/imprison.
>
>>So, the comic that I posted, should the US government
>imprison
>>the person who made it? No.
>
>agreed.
>
>>Should they have made it? No.
>
>no, but they have every right to, without being afraid that
>someone is going to burst into their place of work, and mow
>them down with a machine gun.
>

>Freedom of speech is about the government being able to
>control/punish/imprison.

i suppose. if you want to define the definition, then sure that's what it means, but that seems like some lawyerly bullshit. i think most people would agree that "freedom of speech" has more than the simple definition you've provided here - it's tied to government and that's it. i would suggest it has a definition that's also cultural/social/whatever word you'd like to use.

seems this is made apparent right here given you've provided the definition above and others are using it in, my opinion, a much broader (social/cultural) sense.

>So, the comic that I posted, should the US government imprison
>the person who made it? No

No, but what is at issue is how we react to it. perhaps you think violence, or murder more specifically, is appropriate at some level?

>Should they have made it? No.

i think this is entirely irrelevant. they did and should not have been murdered for it according to my dirty secular point of view.

what do you base the should on? the ought? they shouldn't because it's offensive/reprehensible to a religion? it's religion. it's not objectively true...innate like what you're born with (literally).

all that to say: fight for color, fight for culture, fuck a religion.

kill meh, david hume.

And that is how the murderers came to feel self righteous enough to think they were doing the right thing

Youre stuck on condoning murder. No one thinks you condone murder.

No one thinks you condone
>murder.

Or at minimum forgives it if the victim is an "oppressor."

I think he's made that pretty clear, despite his protestations otherwise.

as if oppression of muslims in france doesn't exist is further evidence as to what I said about you, Rush, and O'Reily. You are them. You are no ally to people of color. You are an upholder of white supremacy.

genius.

and keep on with that "you're not an ally" shit like i give a fuck if dumbshits like you think i'm on your team. i could give 2 shits what you think of me, i know who i am.

I am talking about a society which is socially and systematically oppressive toward muslims, among other people. The fact that you don't see how the cartoons play into that is symptomatic of your white privilege.

And I will continue to tell you that you are not an ally. Because you are not. You are an upholder of white supremacy.

cartoonists.

yeah, yeah, the fact that i called it bullshit is further evidence of my white supremacist world view.

*jerk off motion*

^^^ gets it.
_____________________________________________________
miserable niggas yo
cant let nobody have nothing
"god save the queen pip pip cheerio tea time princess di" ass niggas (c)white desus

I respectfully withdraw as I am too stupid to understand the logic many of you are presenting. Apparently killing 12 innocent people over a cartoon, is understandable considering that many Muslims in France live under brutal and unbearable conditions.

Interestingly enough, the killers never expressed they are fighting against oppression, but clearly demonstrated they killed over a cartoon, and nothing more.

How oppression of the Muslims in France was connected to this insane event is unknown as clearly, if anything, these killings will only result in further oppression against the people, these freedom fighters were clearly trying to help.

Good luck to all of you in your quest to defend insane monsters.

I think you made some decent points, people just got a bit too in their feelings.

Btw, for all the people saying that Charlie Hebdo's drawings were racist, is there any evidence for this? I don't speak French so I can't understand them, but they've been referred to as a left-wing magazine.

The cartoons are actually quite hateful and racist in their imagery. I saw an anti-Semitic one in there too (although technically they are all anti Semitic). No one is defending the action but some understand what it was they set theses dudes off. This is basically Jack Johnson and his white wife strolling down the streets of Jim Crow Birmingham arm in arm.

Would it be right to lynch him? No. Should he not stroll down the avenue in a racially charged city? If he wants to keep his life the answer is sadly yes.

Charlie Hebdo cartoon portraying black Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira as a monkey: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6zAolgIUAA5mbY.jpg

Obviously, none of this justifies murder, but it seems the western media is giving this organization too much credit - as some sort of paragon of liberty.

Side eye to anyone reposting *je suis charlie*

And it should be forgotten after said violence has been carried out. Bunch of hypocrites that owe their entire American existence to this type of nonsense.

to all the people who are trying to rationalise what the murderers did by saying, "but they're just fighting the man! they get victimised all the time so they're just fighting back!" - where is the evidence that they are fighting this supposed good fight? they came in and said some stuff about allah and being apart of al qaeda before killing 12 people and speeding off.

why can't you acknowledge that this may be the work of psychopathic nihilists who want only to bring misery and destruction to anyone who "defies" their divine view of themselves

The French Foreign Legion
The Crusades

In that order

I don't think anyone is justifying their actions, some of us just understand why they acted this inappropriately. Europe has been getting rocked by these types of events well before this. There should have been some discretion IMO.

Here in the states Penn and Teller, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, and even Bill Mahr have toned their shit down. Why? Because they know shit like this could happen and they probably don't want that on their heads.

>
>I don't think anyone is justifying their actions, some of us
>just understand why they acted this inappropriately. Europe
>has been getting rocked by these types of events well before
>this. There should have been some discretion IMO.
>
>Here in the states Penn and Teller, Matt Stone and Trey
>Parker, and even Bill Mahr have toned their shit down. Why?
>Because they know shit like this could happen and they
>probably don't want that on their heads.

how about you tell me what you "understand" about their "inappropiate" (lol) behaviour then? because from where i'm sitting it looks like the work of blood-thirsty, deluded religious psychopaths and not political radicals fighting the evil government.

>it looks like the work of blood-thirsty, deluded
>religious psychopaths and not political radicals fighting the
>evil government.

????

if they were interested in fighting oppression they would start with themselves.

it does not matter to me how racist the cartoons were.

but this but that. irrelevant.

all murder is the same to me. no matter what the reason is.

http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

"At 11:28 a.m. Wednesday local time, the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo tweeted a cartoon of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. "Best wishes and good health," the caption read. Minutes after the tweet was published, three armed and masked gunmen stormed the paper's offices and opened fire, killing ten of its staff and two police officers."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6vY6mDIAAEI5k1.jpg:large

turns out there were no racist cartoons or depictions of the prophet mohammed.

RIP to the Dead, and I hope their families find peace for their loss.

I'm a firm believer in free speech and that no one should be be arrested for freedom expression (minus slander/shouting fire in a theater/etc)

However I'm also cognizant of the fact that I'm a flesh and blood human being and that shit CAN happen to me if I say/do the wrong shit to the wrong person.

I guarantee that for at least 70% of the people reading this, there's SOMETHING that could be said to you that would result in you doing some type of violence. Now you might not go as far as murdering someone, but when you purposely go out of your way to antagonize someone you don't get to determine the method and severity of their reaction.

Everybody dont play the same

Who are these people who grew up not knowing that joking around with the wrong one can get you into some shit

I dont condone senseless violence but I also dont condone naivete

h

Know who you're fucking with or be prepared for the consequences

I just don't understand why those satirists keep on doing this shit, like "Let's draw the prophet as a crossdressing ladyboy sucking cock. Why? Because we can, because it's our right. Free speech cannot be silenced!".

What may once have been a valid criticism against organized religion has become some sort of childish vendetta where you do something because it's your right that you *should* be able to do without thinking about the consequences.

Meanwhile, the action of the shooters will only lead to more racism in europe. I can guarantee that the racist-sorry, mationalist-parties all over europe are rubbing their hands together now in enjoyment because people don't think rational in situations like this. No, they see the news and go "Look at those animals! Look at what they are capable of! Let's throw them out or at least alienate them more".

And increased racism and alienation of minority groups will lead to more terror and people joining radical muslim groups which in turn will lead to more racism and the cycle continues and it just gets worse and worse and I'm so sick of it.

Seriously, the *only* ones benefitting from all this in the long run are

a) the racists/nationalists
b) the radical, militant muslim groups

Meanwhile, everyone else lose and what those figters for free speech needs to ask themselves is: "Is it worth it? Is *that* what we want to achieve?"

fucking savages.

even though he's def a radical, it's pretty insightful stuff and echoes what some have said up there ^^^


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/


Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?


Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.

The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.

So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?

It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected.

Anjem Choudary is a radical Muslim cleric in London and a lecturer in sharia.







"i wanna hug all u idiotic bastards & then set you all on fire" -Bin

www.twitter.com/bedstuybetty
http://bedstuybetty.tumblr.com/
DROkayplayer: Giving you good puff since May '05

Everyone would say GTFOHWTBS.

Like I said before, in a pluralistic society, you got to get use to OTHERS not respecting YOUR faith's dictates like don't depict the prophet.



I said before, one critical idea is that if you live in a pluralistic society, you got to get use to OTHERS not respecting YOUR faith's dictates like don't depict the prophet.

If others doing that drives you into a murderous rage, then you don't have the right to practice your faith (i.e., go kill me) in a liberal democracy.

The exact same way if your Faith can't tolerate gay marriage, that's fine, but you can't use your faith to stop OTHER people from getting married.

Sorry but, Pluralism and Intolerance can't co-exist. One of them will eventually HAVE to give. Which one do YOU want to go away?


It's funny how all of a sudden everyone is sympathetic to Case One-ish arguments because it doesn't involve Case One or Christianity.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

that post where the poster titled it 'pastor making it rain; kids on knees', he got offended and folks pshaw-ed

but people can and have taken that much offense to that kind of thing in the context of islam and we're ok with understanding the reaction because consequence?

i dunno. i hate assholes and CH was definitely racist, misogynist, and offended every single group but probably white french people and im not holding them up as scions and innocent victims here but we (in general) stay looking for perfection before we offer sympathy and we are all horrible. lol. it's dangerous on so many levels.

and having a white majority lobbing balls in their direction is adding insult to injury.

HOWEVER.

I think the logic fails because it's a lunatic fringe*. 99% of Muslims, even those in Paris, would not have flipped out the way they did. And like its been posted above, its not as if we've got proof that this is a revolutionary action of Paris muslims (unless we are viewing Al Queda as an revolutionary group fighting for the oppressed). Guaranteed during this investigation/manhunt there are muslims involved as outraged as everyone else. Same way there's a difference between Fergerson protestors and bored thugs using it as an excuse to loot( to the point the protestors actively blocked them from causing a ruckus).

While Case likes to troll, he does have a point that they get an unfair rap at least amoung these circles because Islam is seen as a relgion of the oppressed and it's role in the Civil Rights struggle and many roots in Africa.

*Although we can argue that the oppression makes it easier for groups like this to thrive.

.

It's took me 50 posts to realize its the oppressed minority aspect of it that got people sympathetic.

But I think you are right in that I think it's a slander against the 99% peaceful muslims to say that these actions are justifiable under their religion and their oppressed status.

It's the equivalent of saying "It's okay that black people are ignorant thieving criminals because, well you know, they have had it so rough in this country". It's a sympathetic statement AND racists as hell.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

agreed, i think that's why sowhat and a few others up there went to pieces. because they equate the muslims' struggle in france as similar to the struggles black people face in america.

although there is nothing here that suggests these acts were committed for political reasons, only deluded religious ones.

I'm just saying considering these cats actually come thru on their threats, why even pop off?

Either we expect the potential for consequence or that everything is essentially meaningless? Think which one is easier for most folks to swallow... *shrug*




"i wanna hug all u idiotic bastards & then set you all on fire" -Bin

www.twitter.com/bedstuybetty
http://bedstuybetty.tumblr.com/
DROkayplayer: Giving you good puff since May '05

until yesterday. the stuff they put out is just wow, like wow.
such extreme obsession/hatred, and not just for muslims. 'artistic'
propaganda machine indeed. rip to those who died and sympathies to
the 'survivors' that are left behind.

Too many people in this thread are saying, "Charlie should have known", without clarifying to what extent and in what circumstances it may have been right for Charlie to know, AND still publish anyway.

If the theaters showing the Interview had gotten shot people would have said, "they should have known." This is allowing violence that results from an act of speech to determine that speech's value.

The way our society functions can't be to cowtow to every terrorist who demands something. In fact we should, wherever possible, share the risk with those whose speech has been oppressed. This is why I liked the Interview outcome.

Was the interview "worth the risk"? I think there's an attitude here among those on the critical of Charlie side that tacitly accepts, "this speech in this particular case isn't vital or necessary, so it's okay to censor here (even though we are only doing so due to the threat of violence)".

This is a hard position for me to either commit to or reject entirely, need to think about it more. I'm inclined to think though we shouldn't make such distinctions, because I really think free expression is that important. The message needs to be "this violence isn't acceptable full stop." Because to those of you who state that "the violence is simply a predictable outcome of this speech," I'll ask, if civilization survives another 500 years, what behavior should remain predictable, violence over cartoons or criticism of religion? I see only one of these as potentially virtuous and beneficial.

since the beginning. choose your flavor(s): socialism, communism,
imperialism, capitalism, racism, nihilism, etc.

plus obviously, not everyone has or is supposed to have the same
views as everyone else. you can try to force/persuade the action
but, you have to know there may be some push back which may result
in something like this.

>plus obviously, not everyone has or is supposed to have the
>same
>views as everyone else. you can try to force/persuade the
>action
>but, you have to know there may be some push back which may
>result
> in something like this.
>

Wait, which side is the one trying to force its views here?

Japan tried to force it's views onto China ad Korea, England forced it's views onto America, America forced it's views onto the Native Americans, The Germans forced theirs onto most of Europe, and so on. Might makes right is how business is done.

Have you heard of Isis?

or the Taliban? Or Boko Haram?

and meanwhile, in reality, some of the most cruel oppressors are the very same "freedom fighters" people are in here defending.

I'm an opressed black American Male. I GET the motivation to lash out against the oppressor but I don't make it a habit to excuse the bad behavior in my own community. Not because I consider myself holier than thou but rather, because 2 wrongs NEVER make a right and frankly, these tactics just don't work the way they are intended.

I don't think we solve militaristic police by barging into police stations and killing them all and I would argue the Policing in america is WAAAAAYYY more oppressive and offensive than a cartoon.

There's levels to this stuff....

it is the most oppressive and progressive society all in one. all the recent events have shown without a doubt that black people are oppressed. i'm not white or black btw and i don't live in the united states but i follow your politics closely and it honestly breaks my heart.

i don't know what i would do in your position. most likely, leave.

I must have missed that one. Nobody supports these guys, but some of us don't support the paper either. It is possible for both sides to be wrong.

Then read 145
Then read 152. Specifically lines 6,7,and 8.
Then read 157
Then read 159. Specifically lines 4 and 5.

And then, while you're at it read 336.

First of all let me say that I do not know you or your history. I respect and admire you simply because you are human. I have no reason to attack you or to insult you and I never will. Perhaps I did not do a good job of expressing my views yesterday but I did not intend to distract you and I was saddened that our exchanges took such a pointless turn. I apologize for my part in it and for upsetting you.

Overall, I think that when you say "I stand with the oppressed" you pigeon hole yourself into a narrow perspective, and use a narrow scope to observe and assess a much larger reality. I don't think you see anything on the periphery and focus directly into what you personally believe constitutes oppression. You have clearly outlined who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor, and I think that is dangerous, because it allows you to excuse, or claim to understand why these extremists would kill cartoonists and innocent bystanders. The very fact they killed innocent bystanders proves it had nothing to do with freedom. It was simply a terrorist act designed to instill fear, and nothing more. It was not a revolutionary act.

The reason why I brought up many Muslim nations most Muslim's are fleeing is because oppression has no face or name. It is universal. The sad reality is that Islam in its true form has been lost to the world. I know this because I spent years studying it. It has nothing to do with violence. It is potentially one of the most beneficial forms of faith there is. Islam teaches that we are all part of god. There are no infidels and enemies. Muhammad himself was ostracized for teaching this. He was a man of love whom loved his wife, and the reason why the color green is celebrated in Islam, is because it was the color of his wife's veil.

The terrorists in question attacked and killed cartoonists. That is not an act which promotes freedom, or an act that illuminates oppression in any way. It will have nasty effects on the Muslim population in France who practice Islam. Already, Mosque's are being attacked. It is an act which creates oppression.

My very simple point is that Muslim's who would like to fight oppression, should first eliminate it in the countries they are fleeing. If these extremists truly cared about Islam and their people, they would not destroy their name. France is hardly a place where Muslims are suffering in great number and in horrible conditions, and you cannot take their reality and connect it to every other form of oppression you brought up: Black Americans, or Mexicans. It is not the same thing. That is why I don't agree with you. You group everything into one group based on your personal experience and make it universal, and that is problematic for me.

And I appreciate the time and thought you put into that. So, I'll address you as fully as the time I have at the moment allows.

In the posts I/we reference I deliberately separated the killers from the more "general" oppressed Muslims. The figure that I read this morning is that 99.6 percent of Muslims are NOT terrorists. So it's very interesting to me that when I say I stand with the oppressed, you and others take that to mean that I stand with the terrorists. It seems to say that you think there is no difference between "regular" folks and extremists. Or if you don't think that, then you think that I do. I don't. No one in here does. But I do believe it is fair to say that the fact that Muslims are an oppressed group in France, makes it easier for these things to occur. Extremists take advantage of the situation for their own ends. If muslims were not an oppressed group in the country there would in my opinion, be less "room" for these kinds of things to occur.

Do I think that they are fighting oppression? To my knowledge we do not know who these people were what their objectives were. I think that they MIGHT think they are and they might not, but that their actions have no benefit for the greater muslim community in France or abroad. Their actions benefit NO ONE. But as I have stated at length context is important. For example, South Park has been brought up in this thread. South Park can attack Christianity and while member of the group may be offended, they are not an oppressed minority groups, they are in fact the "empowered" in the US context. For that reason it is easier for them to "brush off" the offenses. It is not just another aggression amongst the myriad they are facing day to day. I feel for muslims in France who have to deal with Charlie as an additional slap in the face on top of all the other things they deal with day to day. Muslims in France suffer from political, economic, and social repression. Just as Blacks do in that country. Just like Blacks and Latinos do in this country. You can say otherwise but I know this to be true. The anti-hijab laws are evidence to this. Two very close friends of mine are French. Lived there throughout there adolescence. While I have yet to speak about this particular event in the 11 years that I have known them, this fact has come up, over and over and over again. You do for some reason seem to think that all muslims in France are recent immigrants who have strong ties to what you keep calling their "home," their country of origin. I also know that this is not necessarily the case. Yes there are recent immigrants but there are also millions of multi-generational muslims in france with very little connection to what's happening in their countries of origin. The fact that you keep saying the millions of people who make their home in France need to be looking back "home" gives a very xenophobic impression. France is their home.

To me, the fact that by saying I stand with the oppressed, is problematic for you seems to say that you think that the oppressed somehow deserve that. Or that it means I agree with any/every thing oppressed people do. That's silly. I do not stand with murdering cartoonists. But I stand against oppression ie with the oppressed. If you do not, then there is really no discussion to be had between us. Oppression in the west is largely the product of white supremacy. White supremacy is a product of capitalism. I am against both of those things as well. I understand western oppression via these forces. I understand it very well in fact.

I do not understand Arab oppression in the same way, but I understand it well enough. I can tell you that I do not ever stand with oppression. Oppression is systemic. It is bigger the interpersonal hate. So Muslims, the empowered in Iraq, killing Christians, is a problem to me. Israelis, the empowered in Israel, killing Palestinians is a problem to me. Hutus, the empowered in Rwanada, killing Tutsis is/was a problem to me. Whites, the empowered in the US, systemically oppressing non-whites in the US is a problem to me.

What periphery are you speaking of that I don't see?

Also, I have never stated that these cartoonists were "the" oppressors, but the do work within and represent a piece of the oppressive regime. Oppression is bigger than individuals. Do you honestly not see that?

I was rarely in my comments ever even addressing the murderers. There isn't a need to. We all agree that what they did was beyond fucked up. But as we've seen already in the mosque bombings, these things do not exist in any kind of vacuum. The plight of muslim people in France just got tougher. Their oppression just intensified. I stand with them.

I'm out of time.

That was very well and clearly articulated.

>What periphery are you speaking of that I don't see?
>
>Also, I have never stated that these cartoonists were "the"
>oppressors, but the do work within and represent a piece of
>the oppressive regime. Oppression is bigger than individuals.
>Do you honestly not see that?

I do see that and that is precisely what I meant by saying that oppression is universal.

>
>I was rarely in my comments ever even addressing the
>murderers. There isn't a need to. We all agree that what they
>did was beyond fucked up. But as we've seen already in the
>mosque bombings, these things do not exist in any kind of
>vacuum. The plight of muslim people in France just got
>tougher. Their oppression just intensified. I stand with
>them.
>

I think it is important to recognize the terrorists as responsible for making things more difficult at this time, and I suppose that is where much of my frustration lies. I genuinely care about people and it bothers me that psychopath's have hijacked Islam and that we only see examples of death and decay as opposed to what Islam truly stands for. The world needs more examples of Islam's beauty.

In my responses, I was definitely fixated on the terrorists and not the people of France. I see now that I lumped everyone together unfairly and reacted emotionally to it. In truth, it is I who did not see the periphery. Sometimes, and this is a flaw in me, my ego and emotions snowball together and completely blind me from reason and compassion. Thank you for your patience and response.

It's not going to stop

as soon as you attempt to limit how people can express themselves, you move into 1984 territory.

muslim extremists frequently burn flags, or have public executions, or be-headings.

this is considered normal to them, and somehow publishing a satirical cartoon is crossing the line.

the hypocrisy in condemning a satirical magazine and saying "they had it coming" is unreal when you take a look at how muslim extremists operate. has everyone already forgot Isis?" these people are "freedom fighters" to their supporters.

people in here are defending insane monsters and connecting it to a plight these insane criminals never expressed. they were not fighting oppression, they were fighting depictions of their prophet which they find distasteful, that's it.

there is no revolutionary cause behind them at all. they are simply interested in censorship.

is that what you want? what do you want the response to be from this
situation? go look up the definition of oppression since apparently
you don't know wtf it means.

unreal is thinking that actions don't have consequences to oppressed
groups...ESPECIALLY the ridiculed/bullied. violence/psychological
minds games/wars have been waged over skin color. how trivial is that?

i would like us to consider our values, and how they affect foreign policy

capitalism has destroyed this planet.

it creates the very same monsters we condemn from our privileged and luxurious positions in the west.

if humanity was rooted in nature, as were some of the greatest ancient civilizations, we could eliminate a fair chunk of problems and disease which plague us.

How often does/did Charlie Hebdo critique, make fun of, satirize Israel or Zionism?

Did they go in or take on the challenge of anti semitism to the degree of islamophobia-(sp)

I think it was in December at least.

Since they were deemed a sort of ANYTHING goes group of satirical heroes...

Withing the scope of the French climate where Holocaust is sensitive and considering who holds economic and social power...


...did they relentlessly take it there?


They talked about Muslims.
They talked about Christians*.
They talked about niggers.
They talked about Catholics*.


Did they go in on Jews and etc on a regular basis as well.


Just a query

I saw at least one anti jew one but I don't know how frequently they do it.

he's the founder of the Front National, an extreme right wing political party and he is also a known anti-Semite and islamophobe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

Note that the editor of Charlie asked him to apologize and when he didn't, he was fired. Yes, there's a double-standard...

...that could be seen as racist given the crude caricature like drawings of the people

but they also highlight many social ills in said cartoons ie child brides, AIDs epidemics, sex trafficking, womens rights (or lack thereof) corruption etc

theyre (usually) not just gratuitously offensive for the hell of it.


if im not mistaken, this latest attack is over the criticisms of isis leader al baghdadi, not muhammad or islam as a whole (although im sure their past "offenses" played a huge role in this as well)

you self-righteous, backwards logic, victim-blaming, smart-dumbass OKP mf's sound right now, lol

So metaphorically speaking the woman lives in a world where neither she nor society can control the rapists (they can only be punished not prevented). The rapist will show no restraint and is committed to the act-- what choice(s) does that leave the woman?

because it is thought/felt group B cannot control their behavior/reaction to group A?

especially when group A is doing what is within their right and not illegal, just offensive to that other group?

how does that make sense to even encourage people to reduce their own rights/freedoms because someone else can't handle it and will react violently? it will only escalate. the offensive levels will get smaller-to the point people will be scolding folks who say anything negative (even if truthful) against another group because they should have known death could be a consequence.

nah b. i don't want to live like that. CH is an asshole rag and they are horribly offensive to many groups but they are within their right to be that, and did so knowing death was a possibility. those 3 men were not within their right to murder because of it.

the terrorists won't feel any remorse, don't care if anyone connected to them gets killed or has their lives otherwise ruined. Group A is in a different boat. There are children who now lost parents and so on.

So far it really only sounds like that one editor was defiant and ready to pay the ultimate price, I'm not so sure how many others were on board with that. Personally I think keeping your staff safe is greater than making a free speech statement.

To your other point-- I don't want to live in a world run by white supremacy, but I do right? So now what are my options? How do I stay alive and avoid victimization from said system? The safest option is to avoid it.

like that like getting raped."


Kinda surprising to me that a smart dude like SoWhat doesn't seem to see that similarity of argument.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

It's a very good analogy.

France is bigoted
Extremely bigoted against Muslims
They know that backlash is real
They have a counter for expected backlash
Mosques are burning with no remorse
Mosques that were already on target radars before provocation
France is bigoted
Extremely bigoted against Muslims
Charlie is anti-(Muslim, Black, Christian, common sense, etc.)



I could easily deflect and ask you how many Muslim lives have been lost to supremacy in France or I guess Imperalism? Over the years all of the death and oppression has been underreported and an afterthought to those in power and Charlie may well seem more of a mockery and taunting of the Imperial boot on the throat instead of a true challenge to ideologies within various religions.

None of this is anything like your wack sexual assault analogy fam.

Y'all really buying into this ideal that intolerance against freedom of expression is okay for the oppressed minority?

So tell me how that POV works out when Bokem Harem kills 2000 poor nigerians. Is the violence of the oppressed on other oppressed and poor people somehow understandable?


>France is bigoted
>Extremely bigoted against Muslims
>They know that backlash is real
>They have a counter for expected backlash
>Mosques are burning with no remorse
>Mosques that were already on target radars before provocation
>France is bigoted
>Extremely bigoted against Muslims
>Charlie is anti-(Muslim, Black, Christian, common sense, etc.)
>
>
>
>
>I could easily deflect and ask you how many Muslim lives have
>been lost to supremacy in France or I guess Imperalism? Over
>the years all of the death and oppression has been
>underreported and an afterthought to those in power and
>Charlie may well seem more of a mockery and taunting of the
>Imperial boot on the throat instead of a true challenge to
>ideologies within various religions.
>
>None of this is anything like your wack sexual assault analogy
>fam.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Someone in another post said these 400+ is pointless because no one gonna change anyone elses mind. I hope that's not true. If not change mind at least learn something or see a different perspective.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

broached too binarily, as if the only valuable way a discussion/argument can change one's mind is 180 degrees in the other direction.

This post and its discussion has definitely provoked thoughts (some of which I'm still digesting) that were different than those that came before.

I still think both parties are in the wrong.

I really think that in the US we would consider those images as hate speech though, and they come across that way to me due to the gross ethnic caricature of arabs/semitic people.

I don't think the actions of the attackers were justified at all. If anything they should respond with their own degenerate cartoons. Maybe a bunch of frogs and snails being crushed by German tanks or something.

I think the paper should have had zero employees in that building and had been wiser about their plan of distributing that magazine.

The only reason I spoke to the conviction of the attackers is because they didn't hide behind bombs-- they showed up in person which makes this somewhat unique as far as these acts go (outside of Israel anyway).

If they were defending the lives of people in their group I would be more understanding, but that is not the case, so I can't condone their actions, but I can wish that black folks had a similar conviction when it came to protecting the lives of other black people.

Take that as you will.

>The only reason I spoke to the conviction of the attackers is
>because they didn't hide behind bombs-- they showed up in
>person which makes this somewhat unique as far as these acts
>go (outside of Israel anyway).
>
>If they were defending the lives of people in their group I
>would be more understanding, but that is not the case, so I
>can't condone their actions, but I can wish that black folks
>had a similar conviction when it came to protecting the lives
>of other black people.


Black people don't need people willing to die spectacular sensational deaths that not at all improve the lives of anyone they are "fighting for".

We need people to do the day to day unglorious, thankless works that really improves lives.

Ain't nothing to die if you think your life is worthless.

We don't need nihilism. We need everlasting hope.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

>Ain't nothing to die if you think your life is worthless.

HE JUST HAS A COLD NOW.

and that is why I think much of these discussions are pointless, but I suppose impacting one person's perspective is a victory and needed. I think I have an issue with nihilism.

My perspective improved based on my exchange in post #389, 392, and 402.

I never have a problem admitting when I am wrong because I do not want to be part of the problem, or become a disgruntled cancer to this planet, and I was definitely short sighted in my initial reaction to these events.

So there's that.

People acting like jokes dont provoke people

Examples:

Play the dozens w/ someone and start talking about their mama
Shit can get real

Pull a prank on someone who doesnt find the prank funny
Shit can get real

Tell a joke about killing the president on social media
Shit can get real

Let a white person get in blackface & start jiving
Shit can get real

Some jokes just arent funny whether its satire or whatever
Being the butt of a joke is humiliating to some folks

When someone says "I aint the one to play with" you best listen

Freedom of speech cant save you when you've poked the wrong bear

and this is not the same as a woman dressing provocatively so its okay to rape her type of irrationale

thats a poor analogy & doesnt apply in the slightest

>and this is not the same as a woman dressing provocatively so
>its okay to rape her type of irrationale
>
>thats a poor analogy & doesnt apply in the slightest
>
>

raping a woman is always wrong.

a white person telling a racist joke is being a provocateur & agitator

you cant be a victim in that sense.

>raping a woman is always wrong.
>
>a white person telling a racist joke is being a provocateur &
>agitator
>
>you cant be a victim in that sense.

The thing is, it IS the same thing. Once we start adding "well...I know it was cold blooded needless murder....BUUUUT" its extremely problematic as a society.

ugly chicks get raped just as much as cute chicks.
thats why the analogy doesnt work, there's no method to a rapist.

because extremists have been killing folks for being offenses to their religion for less

like for watching soccer
http://www.nola.com/military/index.ssf/2014/06/extremists_kill_48_kenyans_dur.html

like for being born a woman and wanting to go to school
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23241937

like for shopping in a mall or not being muslim...this one is hard to gauge as they did allegedly try and weed out muslims from killing
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/westgate-mall-attacks-kenya-terror

it's not as simple as saying 'don't offend extremists and they won't kill' because THEY ARE EXTREMISTS. they will and have killed for far less and find a lot of what we consider every day living to be offensive

it's really dangerous to tell people to adjust the behaviors they are entitled to engage in, especially when you can't guarantee it will protect them. that's shifting the onus on the victims/potential victims and not on the ones actually committing the crimes

lemme repeat:

I dont condone senseless violence but I also dont condone naivete

When someone warns you & says "I aint the one to play with"
and you continue to poke & prod, thats on you

If you mess with crazy people you cant act surprise when they go crazy on you

they were subject to possibly being killed over what they were doing

but they also knew they had a right to do it, were protected legally under that right, and were willing to die for that right--and they aren't the first nor the last to die for that right

you seem to be naive about the idea that extremists are not just killing asshole journalists. it is not and will never be as simple as adjusting one's behavior so as to not offend in order to prevent an assault

because some extremist out there is just as willing and wanting to kill someone like you for engaging in whatever shenanigans you engage in in your life-even trivial

and just as willing and wanting to kill sowhat for being gay because that offends them as well

Again there's freedom of speech but there's no freedom of consequence

So even tho it was those cartoonist rights to express themselves however they felt,
im not gonna defend or feel sorry for them when they're depicting muslims in a derogatory manner

Im not defending the extremist either for their senseless murders

But I can see why shit hit the fan

>raping a woman is always wrong.
>
>a white person telling a racist joke is being a provocateur &
>agitator
>
>you cant be a victim in that sense.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

lemme repeat:

I dont condone senseless violence but I also dont condone naivete

It seems some people want their cake & eat it too AKA talk shit & face no repercussions

Everybody dont play the same

wrong.

Yes or no, are you implying that killing someone for something they express isn't always wrong?

It's not a hard question. You can give a yes or no answer.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

And I dont feel sorry for people who get killed for being agitators.
And when I say agitators, I mean in the negative way those cartoons were portraying muslims.

.

of say "I dont feel sorry for people who get killed for being agitators"?

I guess he did try to distinguish between I guess what is in his mind "good" agitators versus "bad" agitators.

But should I assume it occurred to him that some folks thought MLK, Jesus, Malcolm X and Ghandi were "bad" agitators?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Im not gonna treat these cartoonist like martyrs

They wanted to push the envelope and now they know what happens when killas push back

my morals are just fine

calling me names changes nothing

but then she says no.

Is it victim blaming to warn her that continuing this game of tease could lead to something bad?

>raping a woman is always wrong.

under no circumstance is it okay to rape a woman

no scenario you design is gonna to make me say otherwise

People got killed over a cartoon, people throw grenades at mosques for "retaliation", the us vs. them-shit gets even more pronounced and so on.

Now then, why *consciously* feed the cycle of ignorance, bigotry and increasing muslim fundamentalism that is europe today? Because it's your right?

THAT *should* be the relevant question, not discussions about free speech and victim blaming and principles and blah-blah; I just think it so completely misses the point. But apparently, that's the important issue.

Obviously, *noone* should be killed for criticizing religion but guess what? They are, they have been in the past and they will be in the future. So what should be done?

The obvious answer is of course more pointless provocations aimed at an already marginalized, discriminated against and widely hated minority so that those barbaric savages will understand that the pen is mightier than the sword and that free speech cannot be silenced.

Well, good luck with that I say. Meanwhile, europe just goes further down the drain...

To someone who is not sane sure. However are we supposed to conduct our lives with the fear that there are crazy people at every corner waiting to start shooting? You can't. Doesn't mean be stupid about it but don't live in fear.

Interesting to see some of the contrasts in viewpoint because the mess with the bull, get the horns perspective applies. Mess with North Korea, they might come back at you.

people are frantically scrambling left, right and centre with goalposts in their hands, not really sure where they should put them down, or if they should put them down at all

quite funny to see really

if we were in Seoul where he could actually reach out & touch a motherfucker ok then we need to be cautious

but we're waaay the hell over here in america. lil kim got the equivalent of a pea shooter nuke wise

meanwhile muzzi are EVERYWHERE & they will blow YOU up. ANYWHERE. can you fuck w/ them, too? 100%. but when they reach out & touch your ass for that, dont be shocked...thats the cost of doing business. you step in that arena, bitch, play the gatdamn game


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

what about the police? they have shown that they are obviously willing to kill people if they perceive them as getting out of line. should we all be cautious around them and watch what we say or do just in case?

you've made quite the u-turn on that

its not a game. its not a joke. if you really want to dismantle this fucked up hypocritical system you must accept that you very well may die. your children will be attacked by strangers. your home may be fire bombed. you may be fired. your personal life unzipped for everyone to see. etc.

and when thats all said...& you have your personal come to jesus moment...and think gee? am i about that life?

most of us. me included. say no. which is why we look @ people who are...your malcolm x's, your MLKs...and yes even your #blackbrunch walk out on the highway types w/ respect because they are literally taking their lives in their own hands

& when they are murdered or killed or imprisoned for life...we who are left who they did it for...have a duty to not forget why they did what they did

same thing here. yes they did it. they knew the risks. they did it anyway. thats an honorable death that you & i wont get. #salute

clear?

does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

you're scared, i get it

If I die, then my child would be a bastard - brad jordan


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

>if we were in Seoul where he could actually reach out & touch
>a motherfucker ok then we need to be cautious
>
>but we're waaay the hell over here in america. lil kim got the
>equivalent of a pea shooter nuke wise
>
>meanwhile muzzi are EVERYWHERE & they will blow YOU up.
>ANYWHERE. can you fuck w/ them, too? 100%. but when they reach
>out & touch your ass for that, dont be shocked...thats the
>cost of doing business. you step in that arena, bitch, play
>the gatdamn game

But actually...

Hackers are EVERYWHERE and they will hack YOU. ANYWHERE. can you fuck w/ them, too? 100%. but when they reach out & touch your ass for that, dont be shocked...thats the cost of doing business. you step in that arena, play the gatdamn game.

Cyber terrorism isn't unknown or new, state sponsored cyber terrorism included.

trust me dude, ill accept that over getting my head blown off


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

>trust me dude, ill accept that over getting my head blown
>off

^^ I'm sure this would still apply, but that doesn't mean you'd accept it so philosophically if it happened to you, especially if it happened to you over someone an employer/client of yours had done, and it messed with putting food on the table for your kids or getting them hospital care/an education.

ppl have tried to get me fired, emailed my girl on some your man is a bum shit, etc

what should i do? quit? no sir...i go harder. thats me tho


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Anjem+Choudary+Plans+Controversial+Anti+War+6KHJUqVDgrIl.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/2015/01/08/radical-imam-anjem-choudary-charlie-hebdo-attack

It'd be like bringing in the Westboro Church dude to espouse his thoughts whenever controversial Christian topics come up

From what I understand, this guy has very few followers and is denigrated by most.
But Hannity loves to bring him on and point and shout at his craziness. Then he does follow ups on the interview as if that guy's beliefs jive with the average Muslim next door.

That we should expect some amongst them to kill over a cartoon!?

I don't like the content of Hebdo. It's not very funny, doesn't offer an substantive critique, and is intentionally provocative. But so what? Some guys published some shitty cartoons, and someone thought it was worth killing for. If you're offended, how about you just don't read the paper? Freedom of expression is precisely being able to say what you want, even if that means being offensive. I think in Europe we have a stronger culture for this perhaps than in America. The utility of what is being said is no part of the discussion. Of course there are limits on hate speech, but lampooning the prophet is hardly hate speech, it's just shitty humour - shitty humour that should be protected without fear of death as the outcome.

Second, let's appreciate for a second that ANY depiction of the prophet is offensive under Islam. That's not just antithetical to those who subscribe to liberal freedoms in the West, it's antithetical to just about everyone besides those who adhere strictly to Islam.

Third, for those claiming there is a racial dimension to this don't really understand the current climate in Europe. It's certainly not about white Europeans vs all browns. Non-muslim brown people are in general in support of Hebda. Those saying that death was a deserved outcome are predominantly Muslim browns and non-brown. Further, Hebda is known to have cartooned and ridiculed Jesus, Christians, the pope, and Jews. Yet none of those are coming out all guns blazing.