Been thinking about what happened in France...

Post Reply New Topic

There is a huge difference between people disagreeing with you and telling you you are wrong (and you are) and censorship. I am fairly sure you know that.

Telling people you will kill them if they write things you don't like... that's a try at censorship.

Just out of curiosity, do you also agree with those weasels from the Catholic League who tried to prevent people from seeing the wonderful "Monty Python's Life of Brian" and the "respectful" people who spoke against Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" ?

As far as I am concerned, the character of individual cartoonists who were savagely murdered isn't on trial and never was. The terrorist is a criminal and should be dealt as one.

Me and others having an opinion about the content of a book or magazine are not criminals and we do not have to buy what we don't like and we can say, "You know what, I don't like this!" without feeling made we are horrible human beings.

I happen to LOVE Salman Rushdie and Satanic Verses. Rushdie is positively brilliant. One of my all time fave writers.

And yet many people were deeply offended by his book. They saw it as no different than the Hebdo cartoons. How do you know which offended sensibilities to respect and which to ignore?

You can't read French, can you?

Okay, what if I said to everyone, "Buy a copy of Satanic Verses to support freedom of the press!"

What if some of the people hearing my message don't happen to like Satanic Verses? What if they don't wish to read it? Suddenly, they are against freedom of the press and speech simply because they do not wish to do what I command of them when that isn't true at all. They just don't happen to like the book. That's all. They can support freedom of expression in other ways besides feeling made if they do not buy something they don't like very much, they aren't supporting fundamental freedoms.

Just because I like the book doesn't mean everyone likes it, and it certainly doesn't mean just because someone doesn't like it they are automatically bad.
People are too quick to say, if you don't like something, you are on the wrong side when that isn't always the case.

And there are plenty of people who get offended when someone like Ted Haggard advocates AGAINST gay rights on the basis of religion and morals before he goes out to have sex with male prostitutes and do meth...

But, somehow it's okay for Ted to "preach" against gays, but others cannot make fun of Christians for their blatant and ludicrous hypocrisy… really?

Here’s another bit of satire that, unfortunately, belongs here.

From “Blasphemy (The Victimless Crime)” by NOFX

If you kindly would read through my posts you would see what I typed about Mohommed and Islam in general and what I typed about religion....

Here's the thing... By your own previous arguments in this thread, Rushdie shouldn't have written that book and YOU should not like it BECAUSE IT OFFENDS PEOPLE.

Rushdie should have written ANOTHER unoffensive book and you should like THAT BOOK instead.

But your opinion about those things is not relevant to this discussion. It's your lack of understanding about satire, free speech, and appropriate discourse that I'm criticizing

There's a big difference between not liking something and being offended and it's true, most do not like insults, even if they are against another and not aimed at them. Did you know Charlie Hebdo only printed about 60,000 copies each run before this happened? Think of how many people live in Paris and yet they only printed around 60,000.
Now think of how many copies of Satanic Verses has sold. Rushdie's book isn't insulting as much as it just uncovers things. He pretty much says something Mohammed heard could have come from Satan. I don't find that an insult in the least. It's merely an intellectual observation.

Dude, that's not why it's okay...

It's about tyranny over the mind of man. EVERYONE should be free to think or say WHATEVER they want NO MATTER HOW WRONG OR STUPID IT MIGHT BE. In that respect, racist speech is, and should be as protected as criticism of religion.


You fight stupid ideas with good ones, not censorship.

By the way, racism is NOT WRONG because people have no control over the color of their skin. It’s wrong because skin color is not a valid way to judge the value of people. However, holding racist views is a good indicator of being a stupid f**k.

See how that works?

Gosh, I’m sorry. I did not realize that you were the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not offensive. You need to inform all those millions of Muslims who did, wrongly, take offense at Mr. Rushdie’s book, because they still want to kill him over it…

If only you’d done that years ago, just think of all the money Mr. Rushdie could have saved on security!

That's why I say, if you don't like something, ignore it. If you find something insulting, ignore. That's what most people were doing, now look. It's just ridiculous. These terrorists went and killed all these people over a piece of paper and now there's more attention being paid to what they disapproved of than ever and it's all because of them.
If enough people ignored what they didn't like, whomever is responsible would cease and find something else to focus on that would get them the attention or money they crave. It is a far better solution than this, obviously.

Satire isn't just an important form of protest against injustice, in this case, satire may ultimately be a lifesaving device for human beings.

The Middle East is in a continuing state of bringing more freedoms to people who did not have them before.

The reason all the children were killed in Pakistan recently was because a more extremist faction that identifies with the Islam religion DID NOT like the fact that women are gaining greater freedoms and demanding that the more fundamentalist aspects of the religion be exercised or ELSE.

THE SAME DAM thing happened in the U.S. with Christianity and the State in general, as women, minorities, and disabled folks gained greater rights in civil rights.

The last hold-out is homosexuals, and even recently in red state Florida they gain the right to civil unions.

Now as a direct result of the callous actions of a terrorist group AGAINST A GROUP OF FREEDOM FIGHTER journalists with PENS INSTEAD OF SWORDS, the Muslim WORLD IS SPEAKING out as entire countries, per example of Iran, against this horrifying tragedy, AS AN ASSAULT AGAINST ISLAM.

So HELL NO, the efforts of these freedom fighters are NOT IN VAIN, not even in death, as the MAIN FIGHT ABOUT ALL OF THESE TERRORIST ATTACKS IS WITHIN MUSLIM COUNTRIES, where most of the terrorist attacks occur in infighting over how free the countries can be per religion and state working together.

So, as a direct result of all of this IT MAY BE HARDER TO RECRUIT EXTREMISTS in the future when there is greater support AGAINST THESE ACTIONS COUNTRY-wide in Muslim Countries.

Yes, Satire can lead to GREATER FREEDOMS.

I SUGGEST you get a french translation before you judge the satire based on cartoons alone.

There is deeper symbolic meaning with the words in tow, if you are able to understand it, as truly some folks on the spectrum CANNOT understand satire, well at all.

IN fact, some have great difficulty with any metaphor, at all.

It is more than obvious in this case that you are not comprehending the deeper meanings of the satire, per what you have expressed here. It is not just insults, IT IS SATIRE, THE TWO THINGS ARE much DIFFERENT 'species of animals'.

And this satire is proof of that, as it is leading to change in total effect and YES POSITIVE CHANGE PER WHAT satire IS ALL ABOUT, no matter how dark or weird it is.

Aghogday, I am watching SNL right now.

I have no problem with satire. I have typed the same thing over and over.

I would strongly recommend throwing Hinduism and Buddhism in there. On the public level they're every bit as insidious, we just don't hear as much about their problems in the west much as we see the Abrhamics on parade.

It does seem like nothing on this earth is perfect, eh?