Options
'I am not Charlie' - cracks in the unity after Paris attacks
onecitizen
Posts: 5,042 Forum Member
✭
This seems very unfortunate.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/am-not-charlie-cracks-unity-paris-attacks-054230477.html#o1JCNyN
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/am-not-charlie-cracks-unity-paris-attacks-054230477.html#o1JCNyN
0
Comments
You're always going to have people disagreeing. In this case it looks like:
a) a fringe minority on the Internet who have praised the attacks, and
b) a body of people who say that while they outright condemn the attacks, they still cannot bring themselves to support a newspaper that mocked religions.
Personally I have no time for either group - they're both part of the problem..
The key things is not whether we have differences but how we deal with them, can we live with complexity allowing debate and even argument without resorting to violent retribution
So wait, people disagreeing are part of the problem, even if they condemn the attacks?
Not sure that's really in the spirit of the whole freedom of speech thing.
I'm not a big fan of deliberately offensive cartoons either, but I'll stick by their right to exist. Did you read the interview with the dude from CH who says he "vomits on" their new fans who completely miss the free speech argument?
No - those two particular groups are part of the problem.
JMVHO obvs.
I absolutely agree, I would prefer people not to be willfully offensive but reluctantly and on balance accept that they will happen in a free society. As civil, enlightened adults we should be able to cope with such differences of opinion, If not how much have we really developed and do we have much to boast about in the western world.
It seems to me that Ian Hislop is a person who understands that free speech comes with responsibilities.
We will hear from these people in due course.
I think that is going to be one of the key issues of the next few years, it may even supplant the left/right paradigm as the fundamental political definer
Yes, one of those groups being "a body of people who say that while they outright condemn the attacks, they still cannot bring themselves to support a newspaper that mocked religions".
I don't support that. I do support its right to exist, but that's a different thing. If someone killed a bunch of Daily Mail staff, I would condemn that. It wouldn't mean I had to support the Daily Mail. If someone killed a bunch of Britain First people? Yes, I'd condemn that too. That wouldn't make me a supporter of Britain First. You see where I'm going with this?
No, not really. The issue of mocking religions was the motivation for the killings in the first place. But anyway, those are just my views.
The point is that they're not cracks. These people were never on board in the first place.
Relentless provocation of what exactly? And yes, free speech comes with responsibilities, one of them is not the fact you invite yourself to be shot.
Exactly right. The people claiming they didn't support JeSuisCharlie now, didn't to begin with.
Fully agree.
Exactly- I support people's right to say what the f*** they want. It doesn't mean I support THEM.
Not sure how I'm "part of the problem", really.
That is limitless!
If you look at the other thread you will see members of this forum who seem to be relishing the prospect of reposting cartoons. That means that anything goes! That means that nothing can be censored!
Have they thought this through? I don't know!
We need to be patient and wait for a British born Cartoonist to produce a mind-blowing, truly horrific cartoon, mocking the dead child of David Cameron.
Will the same posters still be insisting that everyone must re-tweet the cartoon even as public order slowly descends into mayhem......?
Erm, I don't think ANYONE has claimed nothing should be censored, and in reality a lot is, but the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were NOT censored under UK law either. They haven't been reproduced because of taste, but because of fear, as many journalists have agreed. The BBC has said that showing Mohammed is allowed now. Charlie Hebdo mocked everyone and everything, especially religions. It regularly went after the catholic church and politicians within France. Equivocating that to making cartoons mocking Cameron's dead child is daft, as that WOULDN'T be censored either, it would be turned away from in disgust by the general population.
The world will become such a dull place if people are never allowed to say negative things about anyone or anything.
Ah.....so we have seamlessly moved to discussing what nottinghamc decides is, or is not, disgusting.
And if the Dead Child Cartoonist was the subject of an arson attack....and died in the fire......then what?
Would we then see you on twitter urging people to retweet the horrific cartoon to show that Free Speech is absolute?
I agree. See my reference to Private Eye.
I think - I hope - we are discussing the concept of Absolute Free Speech versus Free Speech with Responsibility.
I may be unusual but I take the mickey out of my friends far more than people I hardly know. Banter with friends is great fun and cements relationships, banter or worse about others takes no accopunt of sensibilities and often divides
There is plenty of scope to criticise and argue about things without causing gratuitous offence
Causing offence is simply not sufficient reason to stay quiet though. There will always be someone prepared to take offence. In this case the offence is being taken by a group of people who are trying to hold people who don't share their beliefs to standards imposed by their beliefs. That is not something we should have to accept.
Negative statements should be justified.
I do not support ' Charlie'
I do not support the murders.
When Margaret Thatcher died there was an outcry because some people were quick to make jokes or rejoice about her passing. It was rightly stated by some (not just her supporters) that this was unseemly and good manners suggested that courtesy be shown in the immediate hours following a death and at the time of the funeral with debate at that time being fiocussed on her legacy (good and bad) rather than any personal attacks
I know not everyone observed that (regrettably IMO) but many of us "lefties" did
For me this is a moral issue, if you disagree that is your absolute right. I deplore the terrorists as anyone but I will not allow them to goad me into acting in ways with which I do not feel comfortable.