Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 12, 2015 10:24:33 GMT -5
Are you "white" or are you White? You're really gonna split this hair? What else does he have?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 12, 2015 10:33:39 GMT -5
Are you "white" or are you White? You're really gonna split this hair? I believe that interesting things come out in candid moments.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 12, 2015 10:36:45 GMT -5
You're really gonna split this hair? What else does he have? BENGHAZIoh wait EBOLAoh wait OBAMA
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 12, 2015 10:42:13 GMT -5
BENGHAZIoh wait EBOLAoh wait OBAMA Attention board! See what I mean. He has nothing.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 12, 2015 11:06:03 GMT -5
I think it is legitimate question of how far one can push without reasonable expectation of a push back. Is murder "push back"? Should we expect to be murdered if we make fun of someone's religious beliefs? Did Christians murder people for the crucifix in a jar of urine? Did the establishment media run articles about how those murders were somehow to be "expected"? It's time to STOP apologizing for radical islam, and start facing it down. My opinion is that I nailed someone, and they'd prefer to bury this point.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 12, 2015 11:27:52 GMT -5
Is murder "push back"? Should we expect to be murdered if we make fun of someone's religious beliefs? Did Christians murder people for the crucifix in a jar of urine? Did the establishment media run articles about how those murders were somehow to be "expected"? It's time to STOP apologizing for radical islam, and start facing it down. My opinion is that I nailed someone, and they'd prefer to bury this point. Pointing out that somebody (or some group) is engaging in risky behaviour isn't the same thing as saying "he/she/they had it coming". It's an acknowledgement the party took risks and fell on the "insufferable consequences" side of the probability equation. It doesn't have to be an endorsement or a condemnation of the outcome. It's just an observable matter of fact. Stephane Charbonnier, the slain editor, said it best with, "I'd rather die standing than live on my knees." He acknowledged the risks. He either didn't consider them likely enough or the consequences grave enough to overrule his desire to freely satirize Islam. Some people consider that heroic. Some consider it inflammatory. Either way, even he acknowledged the risks of his profession. He knew he was testing limits. I'm not going to jump on the NYT or any other news agency for objectively pointing that fact out.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 12, 2015 11:42:18 GMT -5
My opinion is that I nailed someone, and they'd prefer to bury this point. Pointing out that somebody (or some group) is engaging in risky behaviour isn't the same thing as saying "he/she/they had it coming". It's an acknowledgement the party took risks and fell on the "insufferable consequences" side of the probability equation. It doesn't have to be an endorsement or a condemnation of the outcome. It's just an observable matter of fact. Stephane Charbonnier, the slain editor, said it best with, "I'd rather die standing than live on my knees." He acknowledged the risks. He either didn't consider them likely enough or the consequences grave enough to overrule his desire to freely satirize Islam. Some people consider that heroic. Some consider it inflammatory. Either way, even he acknowledged the risks of his profession. He knew he was testing limits. I'm not going to jump on the NYT or any other news agency for objectively pointing that fact out. They'd have to do a better job with their words-- something they do for a living-- for it to be as you've said. Statements like "tested the limits of satire" don't quite do the job, and do in fact fall on the "blame the victim" side of line. They say nothing about the courageous stand taken against the enemy- and in fact, the word "radical islam" and enemy appear nowhere in the article-- which is 1,600 words and 37 paragraphs long. And calling it "pushback" is absurd, indeed. Pushback might be a cartoon in response. This is mass murder in an attempt to get an entire nation, and indeed every non-muslim to censor themselves.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 12, 2015 12:19:48 GMT -5
... Stephane Charbonnier, the slain editor, said it best with, "I'd rather die standing than live on my knees." He acknowledged the risks. He either didn't consider them likely enough or the consequences grave enough to overrule his desire to freely satirize Islam. ... He was a "suicide cartoonist" who died for what he believed in. I can respect that.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 12, 2015 12:34:42 GMT -5
I had the understanding to start: you are saying that we need to tell them that they are correct in their acts by adopting them ourselves. No. We do not kill people for drawing cartoons, or disagreeing with us. We kill people who are part of a faction engaged in war with the United States. We confirm their commitment to the cause of war against us first. We give them the ability to "opt out". Upon their refusal, however, to renounce their islamic jihad and intent to murder Americans and inspire others to do so, we respond without mercy, and we simply kill them. Is that before or after you rub them down in bacon fat "so they can't get into heaven"? That was one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
I'm doubting you, Paul. (Don't doubt me. Ever.)
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 12, 2015 12:37:08 GMT -5
Speaking of censorship and political correctness (which is just a nice way of saying censorship), I watched CNN at a local hotel I was at for a conference on January 9th in the morning-- and at least twice, CNN's Chris Cuomo called one of the hostage takers in France an "African American" trying to avoid calling him Black... Not that the race of the man is even important, but after that he kept calling him "The man of African decent" (While his picture is on the screen, of course)... Pathetic. And the sheep howled. "It was small error that was quickly corrected on air, but that didn’t stop conservatives on Twitter from using the moment to highlight CNN’s alleged “political correctness,” led by TheBlaze’s Dana Loesch." Anderson Cooper Corrects Cuomo’s Description of French Terrorist as ‘African-American’ We call black people, black. Never heard of an African-Canadian.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 12, 2015 12:47:15 GMT -5
We call black people, black. Never heard of an African-Canadian. Had an interesting conversation with an Irish college student over the weekend who cannot believe how ridiculous Americans are about race. She said it's so convoluted here about everything that she's never quite sure what she should say, but she learned early on not to talk about having good "craic" (pronounced crack) over the weekend.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 12, 2015 12:59:31 GMT -5
Pointing out that somebody (or some group) is engaging in risky behaviour isn't the same thing as saying "he/she/they had it coming". It's an acknowledgement the party took risks and fell on the "insufferable consequences" side of the probability equation. It doesn't have to be an endorsement or a condemnation of the outcome. It's just an observable matter of fact. Stephane Charbonnier, the slain editor, said it best with, "I'd rather die standing than live on my knees." He acknowledged the risks. He either didn't consider them likely enough or the consequences grave enough to overrule his desire to freely satirize Islam. Some people consider that heroic. Some consider it inflammatory. Either way, even he acknowledged the risks of his profession. He knew he was testing limits. I'm not going to jump on the NYT or any other news agency for objectively pointing that fact out. They'd have to do a better job with their words-- something they do for a living-- for it to be as you've said. Statements like "tested the limits of satire" don't quite do the job, and do in fact fall on the "blame the victim" side of line. They say nothing about the courageous stand taken against the enemy- and in fact, the word "radical islam" and enemy appear nowhere in the article-- which is 1,600 words and 37 paragraphs long. And calling it "pushback" is absurd, indeed. Pushback might be a cartoon in response. This is mass murder in an attempt to get an entire nation, and indeed every non-muslim to censor themselves. If they omitted any mention of what specific satire motivated the massacre (e.g. "Mohammed", "Islam", "jihad", etc.), that's a shameful omission. I don't know if that's the case. As for "courageous stand against the enemy", it's to their credit they didn't portray CH that way. It's not an objective viewpoint. I get that you're looking for "Give me liberty or give me death!" editorializing, but this is one case where I'd much prefer an objective outlook. For one thing, we don't know that CH was making a courageous stand against the enemy. After the first attack, they may just as well have continued out of spite or for lack of professional alternatives. Or perhaps they didn't perceive any meaningful risk. Mankind is notoriously bad for that. For another thing, as much as I enjoy editorial cartoons, all of the sample ones I saw that angered Muslims really had no constructive, satirical, or editorial value beyond "Radical Muslims kill people," which is a fact that western society is already eminently familiar with. In short, I see very little value in the work they were doing. I prefer the thoughtful analyses of writers like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant to crude satire. That certainly doesn't mean the cartoonists deserved to die. I just don't perceive how their satirizing Islam did anyone any good, and it's hard to juxtapose that with the overriding "freedom of speech is a blessing" narrative. If the article presented the facts without any ceremony or eulogizing, steering clear of characterizing CH either as courageous freedom-loving champions or clowns charging into a minefield for no good reason, it conforms exactly to the standards journalism is supposed to be governed by. If you want rah-rah call-to-arms sensationalism, read the editorial pages.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 13, 2015 0:24:25 GMT -5
Wow. I never thought I'd live to see the day where a major American newspaper accepting as self-evident the right of free expression and identifying the enemies of that fundamental natural right would be considered 'editorializing'. Maybe we're in deeper shit than even I thought?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 13, 2015 0:38:14 GMT -5
We call black people, black. Never heard of an African-Canadian. Had an interesting conversation with an Irish college student over the weekend who cannot believe how ridiculous Americans are about race. She said it's so convoluted here about everything that she's never quite sure what she should say, but she learned early on not to talk about having good "craic" (pronounced crack) over the weekend. I had the same conversation with a fellow who was handing out leaflets of Black History Month activities, in the subway today. That being said, the blacks in the US have a completely different history than the ones in Canada or other countries. The past does tend to colour the present.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 13, 2015 3:11:25 GMT -5
Wow. I never thought I'd live to see the day where a major American newspaper accepting as self-evident the right of free expression and identifying the enemies of that fundamental natural right would be considered 'editorializing'. Maybe we're in deeper shit than even I thought? You haven't posted a link to the article (I don't even know if it's available freely online), hence I can't address any specifics. What I can say is that "Twelve staff members of Charlie Hebdo, a French publisher of satirical political cartoons, were massacred by a group of X armed men on Friday morning. The attack was perpetrated by a locally-based extremist group incensed by the publisher's satirical portrayal of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, ..." is an objective assessment. "This past Friday, twelve crusaders for freedom of speech at Charlie Hebdo, a French publisher of satirical political cartoons, were gunned down for sake of their courageous defiance against the tyranny of radical Islam..." is editorializing. So is: "In an attack that many analysts had deemed 'inevitable', twelve members of Charlie Hebdo--a French publisher of incendiary political satire--were gunned down Friday morning by a local group of armed men. Officials believe the attacks were motivated by the publisher's persistent, unabashedly crass portrayal of sacred religious figures...". The snippet you give is closest to my first example. What you seem to be looking for is the second example, which is editorializing. The third example is a sample of what editorializing looks like on the apologetic end of the spectrum. If the NYT article is closest to this third example, the "tested the limits of satire" snippet certainly isn't sufficient to demonstrate that.
|
|