Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

Tinders said:
Never quite understood why people are so 'pro offense', why people think its clever and brave and all the other trite nonsense thats mentioned with CH at the moment, just comes across as crass,childish and uncouth, and an excuse to court controversy to sell more mags.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. It's anything BUT brave!
 
Amp34 said:
Would it be "their problem" if someone drew a cartoon making light of concentration camps and people found it offensive? How about the naked rambler that keeps getting arrested because he offends someone? Is it not the offendees problem there rather than the person that just doesn't like clothes? How about stunning and slitting the throat of a goat in the middle of a town centre, then butchering it and cooking it?
Click to expand...

None of those three things would offend me though, the concentration camp cartoon example - it's just a cartoon, the naked rambler - is just some weirdo, slaughtering an animal in public - doesn't bother me at all, I might be a bit squeamish at first, but there are many places in the world where animals are slaughtered in public markets all the time.

I think it is their problem, if you allow yourself to be in the mindset where you become bent out of shape over something silly like a cartoon (which could be about anything) then you're stupid.
 
Tinders said:
Never quite understood why people are so 'pro offense', why people think its clever and brave and all the other trite nonsense thats mentioned with CH at the moment, just comes across as crass,childish and uncouth, and an excuse to court controversy to sell more mags.
Click to expand...

Anything can be offensive though, a joke about the queen a dig at Maggie Thatcher

Just because some people use violence or are more prone to kicking off shouldn't give them special status
 
dowie said:
Anything can be offensive though, a joke about the queen a dig at Maggie Thatcher

Just because some people use violence or are more prone to kicking off shouldn't give them special status
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from. However, perhaps it should. I'd prefer not to die because someone or a group of people where offended by some images.

Jeremy Clarkson is known for "pushing the boundaries" with his humor. And has often got into trouble for it. Where were all of the Freedom of Speech activists then?
 
Last edited:
DAIR said:
I understand where you're coming from. However, perhaps it should. I'd prefer not to die because someone or a group of people where offended by some images.
Click to expand...

You start pandering to a group because of the possibilities of violence and then where does it stop? Anyone who gets there own way by threats of violence is by definition a terrorist.

Why the done thing is not to deal with terrorists.

And anyway... treating a whole group of people differently just because of who they are... isn't there a word for that? :rolleyes:
 
I'd probably agree in part with both of you.

Then there is another point of course(which balky12 has touched on). Which is, if you demonstrate that acts of violence succeed in what they are trying to achieve then that sets quite a risky precedent.
 
balky12 said:
You start pandering to a group because of the possibilities of violence and then where does it stop? Anyone who gets there own way by threats of violence is by definition a terrorist.

Why the done thing is not to deal with terrorists.

And anyway... treating a whole group of people differently just because of who they are... isn't there a word for that? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Could be many words...
 
Excuse me?

I'm just playing the Devil'S or Angel's advocate here.

And seriously. What type of people are were talking about here? lol

People of authority, Famous people, people of a certain faith/creed.......
 
Last edited:
DAIR said:
I understand where you're coming from. However, perhaps it should. I'd prefer not to die because someone or a group of people where offended by some images.

Jeremy Clarkson is known for "pushing the boundaries" with his humor. And has often got into trouble for it. Where were all of the Freedom of Speech activists then?
Click to expand...

Jeremy Clarkson issue was a storm in a teacup, is it acceptable for a national broadcaster to air racist language, probably not. He may or may not have said the N word, he apologised for it and was given a warning. I don't think anyone is arguing for the right to sing a racist nursery rhyme on state funded TV. Criticising an ideology and using a racist term are separate issues. If someone wants to say the N word then so be it but the BBC understandably didn't want it in that context and there are issues around inciting racial hatred... Religion/belief does not deserve the same protection.

I'd prefer not to die for it either, I'm not interested in Mohamed pictures, but not a left wing reader of this magazine - it is a magazine aimed at left wing atheists, it had a small circulation, they want to mock right wing politicians, mock religions.. that is their right. If a Muslim is offended by mocking religion then don't buy the magazine.


Some people might find the Bible or the Quran offensive, they don't have any more right to demand that people stop selling those violent oppressive books than others have to demand that a magazine with cartoons not get published.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom