This is the point I originally responded to.Funkstain wrote:So - you think that Hebdo were not, and are not being racist? Because that's like, my only point. The fact that they hide behind a "see terrorists you'll never win..." so that they can get away with "...against our racism".It's clear. It's just wrong.Eh, if I'm not making myself clear enough to be understood after all dem posts I guess I have to give up
This doesn't say "hebdo are racist" this says "defending them is wrong because they are racist" and also "they are lying about their reasons for doing this". First point is wrong, second one is a supposition which I disagree with. They haven't hid their views in the past. I don't see why they'd do it now.Funkstain wrote:People defending Hebdo for publishing insulting cartoons on purpose after what happened, are in my view totally missing the point of what Hebdo are trying to do, which absolutely is "fuck you muzzos"
Funkstain wrote:There is no-one on this forum who has said anything like " they shouldn't print this cos they could get killed / deserve what they get / etc ". it's a straw man argument and I don't understand who it is for, since obviously everyone in here is in agreement with such an obvious point.
b0r1s wrote:If this causes more terror attacks they should be held responsible. Why would you do this?
Dinostar77 wrote:If there is another terror attack on hebdo staff then the magazine is to blame for poking the Hornets nest again. There are enough nutters out there who take this stuff far too seriously and are willing to throw their lives away for retribution. So why risk it again? Stupid of hebdo.
LivDiv wrote:Publishers have to so people don't get shot.
b0r1s wrote:So no, probably not fully to blame, but you can't now reasonably expect to do this and if something shit happens in France, wash your hands of responsibility.
b0r1s wrote:And in no way am I excusing the killers. But second time around you should expect some backlash. Why piss people off. This smacks of freedom of speech bordering on freedom to incite. It’s divisive and doesn’t need to happen. I just hope that no one reacts to this beyond some Twitter outrage.
SpaceGazelle wrote:I'm not sure the last two sit well together.
b0r1s wrote:Exactly. I could call Wookie a cunt, but I should expect a roundhouse to the face for it.
SpaceGazelle wrote:I'm not sure the last two sit well together.
Wookienopants wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, just kinda skimmed the last two pages but here's my two cents for what it's worth (which is fuck all) Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. You're free to say and write whatever you want, other people are free to react in the way they deem fit and if that means consequences then that's partially on you for being an asshole. It doesn't excuse violence but you can't expect to openly offend someone and not have some sort of reaction.
Wookienopants wrote:Only when I'm on shift, Im signed off for a month so I'm just plain old wookie
GurtTractor wrote:We already have the social mechanisms to start to work against racism and general cuntery, legal and governmental intervention is not and absolutely should not be needed when it comes to what groups and people can say. In this instance what use would intervention from the French government be? This has clearly sparked plenty of healthy debate, denouncement, and hopefully some self awareness, which is what is needed for progress.SpaceGazelle wrote:I'm not sure the last two sit well together.
Ah well, we're grand so. I guess that's that. Side note - quite enjoyed this debate for the morning. I know some here hate when threads go this way but I quite like reading the different points brought forward, even if they disagree with me.monkey wrote:The only way to legally restrict free speech is for the people in power to decide what is and is not permissible to say. Take a look at the people currently in power.
Diluted Dante wrote:Wookienopants wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, just kinda skimmed the last two pages but here's my two cents for what it's worth (which is fuck all) Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. You're free to say and write whatever you want, other people are free to react in the way they deem fit and if that means consequences then that's partially on you for being an asshole. It doesn't excuse violence but you can't expect to openly offend someone and not have some sort of reaction.
I don't think many people would be all too bothered if the reaction was a protest outside their office, or an advertiser boycott or something. The reason you can't draw the man is to prevent idoltry. I'd say that's backfired spectacuarly.
monkey wrote:The only way to legally restrict free speech is for the people in power to decide what is and is not permissible to say. Take a look at the people currently in power.
Dinostar77 wrote:Wookienopants wrote:Only when I'm on shift, Im signed off for a month so I'm just plain old wookie
On full pay? A mate (a pc) was telling me the met will sign you off on full pay for 6 months if your going through a gender identity crisis.
But not by other morons.SpaceGazelle wrote:As long as we vote them into power I don't have a problem with that. If the internet has taught us anything it's that people will believe anything. We're morons and need to be stopped.monkey wrote:The only way to legally restrict free speech is for the people in power to decide what is and is not permissible to say. Take a look at the people currently in power.
Vela wrote:The solution is simple. Be nice. Don't be rude to people and don't kill people either.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!