The French Massacre - Do We Stand Up For Free Speech?

**Frownland** · 01-16-2015, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Benteke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w2ZS231BAQ

Fox News at it again.

What the fuck.

You know it's bad when fear mongering is the best attribute of a news segment. Jesus Christ.

Chula Vista · 01-16-2015, 05:44 PM

Good lord. Even for Fox it's hard to believe that that segment was approved to be put on the air.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-16-2015, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

"Pages"? My post was only three paragraphs and change. And I really don't think that someone who recently made three consecutive posts should be giving others lessons in brevity. Anyway, we were all just talking about the original magazine covers that started this incident, and the ramifications of the violence, if you want to join the discussion. I'd love to hear your opinion. But if you don't actually have anything to contribute, and are just coming back to yammer on about "thugs with beards that promote censorship"...

lol. you know i really should thank you. you actually gave me something to look forward to after work. i dunno what it was that made you choose to antagonize me like this but i really do live for this sort of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

Going for round three, huh? Well, you're off to kind of a strange start, with three consecutive posts. Anyway, why are you back? Literally every single one of your points has been refuted, and you keep bringing up the issue of "censorship", which nobody is contesting. It's almost like you want us to support censorship, so you can have an excuse to keep rambling on.

er.. you say nobody is contesting this point but i'm saying point blank that while nobody is willing to say "yea i support censorship," by suggesting that people should filter themselves so as not to provoke violence they are in fact promoting self-censorship.

i spelled out pretty clearly for you how i define self censorship. here's mine again, incase you missed it: when people hold back from expressing something (be it a vulgar cartoon or what have you) out of fear of retribution then that is self-censorship. if you disagree with my defintion then feel free to give your own.

simply reiterating again and again that 'nobody here supports censorship' is getting you nowhere. i'm saying they are and i'm giving you my reasoning for doing so. you can try addressing my point head on instead of just dismissing it without giving any reasoning and maybe then you'll earn my respect.

Quote:

Anyway, Chula and Trollheart never said that people should censor themselves. All they said was that the people who criticized the terrorists should have expected something violent to happen, and have been prepared for it. That's not "censoring" or "giving up". People still want to send clear messages to the terrorists, but they don't have to die needlessly to do it.

no, you're wrong. part of chula's point was that they should have armed themselves. once again my response to that is that whether or not that would have been smart to do, it's not an obligation that they have and by focusing on that rather than on the actions of the terrorists he is shifting the blame from the real criminals to the victims.

remember this... the post that set off this whole argument?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

****, i will be straight up and say i think you're guilty of shifting the blame away from the murderers by going on about how you think the magazine should have been smarter and should have either shut up or armed themselves etc. basically what it boils down to, to me, is certain extremists have made it clear that if you attack islam with words and drawings they will attack you back with bullets and bombs. by saying we should be smart and not 'poke the bear' or that if we do we should have some sort of bear-proof vest on when poking it, you're basically caving in and giving them exactly what they want. you're making their violence useful and in that way you're actually encouraging them to continue to be violent. the only appropriate response to me when **** like this goes down is to stand your ground. any response other than a middle finger to bearded thugs world wide is honestly cowardice and treason to me.

another part of his point was that you 'shouldn't poke the bear.' i.e. you shouldn't go saying or publishing inflammatory **** that you think might provoke a violent response, just because you can. see: his harley example

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

It's not extortion. It's stupidity.

Let's say you have a muscle bound nasty Harley biker living across the street from you.

Are you going to post a sign on your front lawn that reads "Harley Dudes are P*ssies", just because it's within your rights to do so?

self-censorship, plain and simple.

i can dig up more if need be but i'll leave it at that for now as you've given me a lot of other **** to respond to.

Quote:

But that's besides the point. I don't support censorship. And if you'll remember, when Chula and Trollheart were still here, I was the one opposing their point of view, and I called them out for demeaning the heroic actios of those journalists. So why are you shouting all of this junk at me? You have literally no reason to be here.

you have a poor memory, it seems. believe it or not i actually did take this up with chula & trollheart, and that's when you tried to intervene with your peacekeeping mission, and that's when i rejected your olive branch, and that's when you started looking for ways to take me down despite the fact that you might even agree with me about free speech. the fact that you agree with me yet choose to argue with me anyway isn't honestly my fault.

remember? you were saying both sides are right and i was disagreeing with you saying only my side is right? and you asked me what my issue was and i responded:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

anyway, i guess my issue is that you're saying you agree with me but then when you explain what you're agreeing with it's not actually what i'm saying. what i'm saying specifically is that "it could be handled better" is wrong. i don't know how much clearer i can make that. "handling it better" to me means appeasing terrorists. i don't think that is the right approach.

appeasing terrorists. via self-censorship. aka not poking the bear. this is what i have disagreed with from the beginning. of course, you misinterpreted this as me advocating violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

Read my post again. It had nothing to do with your personal level of violence. Try not to miss the point this time. You keep claiming that using violence against the terrorists is the best solution. The truth is that it is a temporary solution, and will only create even more destabilized political and socioeconomic factors, leading to more terrorist cells. It is a temporary fix, tempting and seemingly justified as it is, and has been proven to solve nothing.

...and then i corrected you and explicitly said i wasn't advocating violence, but words (i.e. not caving in to self-censorship)

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

i haven't actually advocated using violence.... i am advocating using words. we should use violence where necessary... for example to apprehend the thugs in question. i'm sure even you agree with that. beyond that i'm not advocating any type of violence so i don't know where you're getting that from.

this is also the quote where i said the only violence i'm advocating is whatever violence is necessary to arrest the criminals. which you of course misinterpreted as me saying we should just focus on arresting criminals and nothing else...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

Or we could just follow your advice and focus on arresting/attacking terrorists as a reactionary solution. Because the thousands of years of violence in the Middle East have proven that reactionary violence is such a successful tactic.

but what else is new?

here's some more quotes from soon after of me making it clear as day that my only beef was with self censorship

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

lol... level with me honestly are you ignoring my words on purpose or do we have some sort of communication barrier? i'm saying we should stand up for free speech in the face of violence and that means yea saying what we want and standing up for people saying what they want. basically it means not backing down. with words. that's where i'm saying don't compromise. if you agree with that then you agree with me. if you don't then you don't. it's really that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

lol, i never said seek revenge in the form of violence. just that we shouldn't self-censor for their sake or else they win. which i'm still saying. i'm not even fighting at this point i feel like i'm restating my point again and again and you keep arguing back against some **** i never said in the first place. i don't know if you agree or disagree, that's up to you but yea basically that's where i stand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

maybe you don't understand what i meant by "compromise doesn't work in the face of violence" but i meant to back down and self censor as a result of their violence is giving them what they want.

then you respond with the civil rights movement where the people who ended up backing down were the violent ones. that only proves me right even more lol. i'm saying we should continue to assert our rights. ignore that point all you like, i can't make it any simpler tbh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

lol i feel like we're having two seperate conversations or something. i've tried to be pretty clear but i am running out of energy tbh. i'll try one more time.

if by compromise you mean continue to say and post whatever we like in our society then i guess we agree, i just don't call that compromise tbh. that sounds to me like doing whatever we want.

if by compromise you mean self-censor then i don't think we should do that. i think in the civil rights analogy that kind of compromise would have been akin to the protesters just giving up and agreeing to drink from different water fountains and **** to appease the racists. that's the kind of compromise that i'm not really in favor of.

other than that i'd really prefer to have some bacon at this point.

and so on and so on and so on...

for all the accusations of me advocating violence and whatnot you've never backed that up. i told you it was a baseless accussation from the beginning and you simply chose to ignore me.

so are you seriously going to sit here and tell me it's me that's been switching my stance up? you just kept trying to sidetrack me with irrelevant **** about the black panthers and whatnot and when i explained to you that i was never saying non-violence can't work you just kept going on about how you were right that non-violence and compromise can work.

my point about compromise was very simple: not compromising in the face of violence = not giving violent people who use threats to try to get what they want whatever it is they're asking for. i stand by the fact that we shouldn't do this. i also made it very clear early on that this is what i meant.

so... you were saying...?

Oriphiel · 01-16-2015, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Benteke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w2ZS231BAQ

Fox News at it again.

What the fuck.

That was legitimately creepy. I've never been able to understand how some people can have so much hate inside of them, smiling while talking about the possibility of war. I can understand people wanting justice for the recent attacks, but when they literally open with the line "We need to kill them!", it's kind of hard to take them seriously. It's gotten to the point where I can't even tell political videos from over-the-top parodies anymore.

Oriphiel · 01-16-2015, 05:48 PM

Hey John, are you still freaking out about nothing up there?

Anyway, i'm plugging with a few people. Care to join us?

Chula Vista · 01-16-2015, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

You are the editor of a small town newspaper. A well known violent thug lives with his mom on the same street as you. One day you publish a cartoon of his mom with the caption "I need to get laid". When asked why you did it you say "It's my right to do so". That night a rock comes through your window.

The next day you publish a cartoon of the thug's mom making out with a donkey. When asked why you did it you reply "Free speech baby". That night your backyard shed gets torched.

The next day you publish a cartoon of the thug's mom naked and getting boned from behind by the donkey. When asked why, considering how much the thug adores his mom, you reply "Hey, she's not my mom. I don't adore her". That night the thug breaks down your door and beats you to death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

self-censorship, plain and simple.

Noooooo. Common sense should have prevailed and they'd be alive. They lacked that and now they are dead.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-16-2015, 06:06 PM

i dunno what plugging is. but i think i've actually been pretty calm with you all things considered lol. you were basically begging me to son you.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-16-2015, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Noooooo. Common sense should have prevailed and they'd be alive. They lacked that and now they are dead.

more victim blaming, huh chulo?

Chula Vista · 01-16-2015, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

more victim blaming, huh chulo?

Sure, JWB. Sure. And thanks for the compliment. I don't get too many people telling me I'm cute at my age.

Oriphiel · 01-16-2015, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

i dunno what plugging is. but i think i've actually been pretty calm with you all things considered lol. you were basically begging me to son you.

It's where people from Music Banter hang out and play music for each other. And yes, it's alot more fun than it sounds, as well as being a fantastic way of getting to know each other! Right now i'm playing music with WhateverDude and Christian.

https://plug.dj/mb/

And by the way, I didn't bother to read that incoherent wall of text you posted, as I don't have the plethora of hours it would take to decipher your horrible grammar and random tangents. But I am glad that I gave you something to look forward to after work!

01-16-2015, 05:44 PM	#342 (permalink)
Chula Vista Toasted Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: SoCal by way of Boston Posts: 11,332	Good lord. Even for Fox it's hard to believe that that segment was approved to be put on the air. __________________ “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

01-16-2015, 05:48 PM	#345 (permalink)
Oriphiel Ask me how! Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: The States Posts: 5,355	Hey John, are you still freaking out about nothing up there? Anyway, i'm plugging with a few people. Care to join us?

01-16-2015, 06:06 PM	#347 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	i dunno what plugging is. but i think i've actually been pretty calm with you all things considered lol. you were basically begging me to son you.