Tryfield Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 But freedom of speech is under threat: attacks like this have a chilling effect on all of us. It's the responsibility of all of us, and of western governments, not to give in to such cowardly attacks. islamic values and progressive european values can't live side by side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 So... another thread with one lot of posters accusing the other of victim-blaming and the other saying "what the f*** did you expect?" when the victims did something rather unadvisable, huh? It's pretty much the same underlying and centre issue being debated over on the Middleton thread. The editors may not have intended to kick off a fight but such actions are reckless in todays environment given what's already happened with Danish cartoons in the past. They've clearly known that if they publish it then they're going to terribly wind up thousands (maybe millions) of muslims yet they went ahead and did it anyway. It won't be a shock to most that I reckon the editors are partly responsible here, even though they're the victim and they didn't actually do anything illegal. I'm just waiting on VT and Mr X to jump onto xbl, Gaz and Swampy's debating team. I've already noticed xbl accusing posters of 'defending' the offending party just because that poster reckons the magazine company never helped themselves, which is a load of tosh. There's never any defence for such acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drs Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Cant be the only one who has read this thinking it would be about the Peoples Princess nipples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Cant be the only one who has read this thinking it would be about the Peoples Princess nipples May as well of been! Very similar moral argument, different characters and scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyarabnuts Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Cant be the only one who has read this thinking it would be about the Peoples Princess nipples yes ,Im bitterly disappointed that it wasn't about Middy's naughty bits instead its about Getting your ankles out for the lads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I'm sick of hearing about how Muslims "all over the world" are outraged. They are always outraged about something. no doubt some embassy thousand of miles way will now be attacked, chances are it won't even be a french embassy and people murdered for simple not being a muslim.However they dress it up, I don't believe they are truly angry at a cartoon, but use it as an excuse to cover up their bigotry towards non muslims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I don't know what to make of things like this. Obviously I'm not Muslim, or even religious, but to me it's much more offensive that in France Muslim girls and women are prevented from wearing headscarves, and therefore the freedom to follow an important part their faith, that it is for someone to use freedom of speech to question, satirize or parody a religion. france is a secular nation. if muslims don't like the law they can leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I'm sick of hearing about how Muslims "all over the world" are outraged. They are always outraged about something. no doubt some embassy thousand of miles way will now be attacked, chances are it won't even be a french embassy and people murdered for simple not being a muslim.However they dress it up, I don't believe they are truly angry at a cartoon, but use it as an excuse to cover up their bigotry towards non muslims Surely that's a sweeping generalisation of people worldwide based purely on their religion? I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims around the world who aren't bothered at all by this. Not all Muslims think exactly alike, just as not all Christians agree on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 So... another thread with one lot of posters accusing the other of victim-blaming and the other saying "what the f*** did you expect?" when the victims did something rather unadvisable, huh? Sort of correct. It is a similar principle and it's really disappointing that people are quick to jump in and blame ther victims "for doing something inadvisable". This type of point is almost always preceded by a "Now, I'm not condoning what..." mewling hand-wringing apologyfest for something reprehensible. i.e "Now, I'm not condoning gay bashing or defending gay bashers, but if gay men didn't kiss each other in public, mewelllll, homophobic bigots maybe wouldn't stab them to death... mewelllll. They have to take soo-mewelll-me responsibility for their actions. Maybe if they just kept their holding hands and fings to the bedroom (with curtains and blinds shut) then well, they'd still be alive today... mewellll" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 france is a secular nation. if muslims don't like the law they can leave. Sounds like something Nick Griffin could come out with tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Surely that's a sweeping generalisation of people worldwide based purely on their religion? I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims around the world who aren't bothered at all by this. Not all Muslims think exactly alike, just as not all Christians agree on everything. I know not all are alike, only an idiot would think so. But i do think everytime something like this pops up it is an excuse for certain people to use violence and murder, especially against people who have no involvement with the "outrage" they just happen to be non muslim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 i.e "Now, I'm not condoning gay bashing or defending gay bashers, but if gay men didn't kiss each other in public, mewelllll, homophobic bigots maybe wouldn't stab them to death... mewelllll. They have to take soo-mewelll-me responsibility for their actions. Maybe if they just kept their holding hands and fings to the bedroom (with curtains and blinds shut) then well, they'd still be alive today... mewellll" when did that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 when did that happen? It's a hypothetical situation. However gay men in the UK have been beaten up purely for being gay. I'm interested to find out if our resident victim blamers would find them any percent to blame for their predicament by "inflaming" their attackers through some overtly gay behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I don't know what to make of things like this. Obviously I'm not Muslim, or even religious, but to me it's much more offensive that in France Muslim girls and women are prevented from wearing headscarves, and therefore the freedom to follow an important part their faith, that it is for someone to use freedom of speech to question, satirize or parody a religion. Intolerant people expecting tolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Sort of correct. It is a similar principle and it's really disappointing that people are quick to jump in and blame ther victims "for doing something inadvisable". This type of point is almost always preceded by a "Now, I'm not condoning what..." mewling hand-wringing apologyfest for something reprehensible. i.e "Now, I'm not condoning gay bashing or defending gay bashers, but if gay men didn't kiss each other in public, mewelllll, homophobic bigots maybe wouldn't stab them to death... mewelllll. They have to take soo-mewelll-me responsibility for their actions. Maybe if they just kept their holding hands and fings to the bedroom (with curtains and blinds shut) then well, they'd still be alive today... mewellll" There's a difference there though. In that case the person is inferring that gay-bashing is acceptable under certain conditions. That's different to this forever indefensible act which happened as a result of an inadvisable decision made by the targets in this mess. In this case it wasn't even naivety like it probably was with Middleton, it was just daftness. Nobody here is saying "Firebombing is terrible... unless somebody pissed them off, in which case it's perfectly alright. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 There's a difference there though. In that case the person is inferring that gay-bashing is acceptable under certain conditions. Well, not exactly. They are saying that if only the victims hadn't been so gay in public it might not have happened to them, and they were maybe, oh, I don't know "stupid" or "naive" or "ill-advised" to kiss each other in public, just in case a violent homophobic bigot happened to be walking past. That's what victim blaming is. It isn't saying the offence itself is justificable. It's saying the vitims either completely, or in part, brought their fate on themselves (despite engaging in completely lawful and moral activities) by their actions. The whole ethos of victim blaming is to turn things around and, rather than saying "It's utterly unacceptable that these people were murdered/beaten up through no fault of their own" they say "hang on, why were they killed? Maybe they shuoldn't have walked through that part of town? Maybe they shouldn't have worn those pink t-shirts? Maybe they shouldn't have held hands? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It's a hypothetical situation. However gay men in the UK have been beaten up purely for being gay. I'm interested to find out if our resident victim blamers would find them any percent to blame for their predicament by "inflaming" their attackers through some overtly gay behaviour. there has to be a distinction between guilt and responsibility. even in altercations where individuals are completely innocent you still have to consider self responsibility. we don't live in a utopia, i might think i should be able to walk through pollock at 11pm on a friday night with 50 £20 notes sellotaped to my back and not be robbed but the reality is different and anyone who doesn't properly consider risk bears some responsibilty for their misfortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oht Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It's a hypothetical situation. However gay men in the UK have been beaten up purely for being gay. I'm interested to find out if our resident victim blamers would find them any percent to blame for their predicament by "inflaming" their attackers through some overtly gay behaviour. There is a difference in the scenarios, in that the aim of gay couples kissing isn't to provoke others. If the magazine's editor and staff want to take a stance then fine, that's what public speech is about. Violence towards them is unacceptable, but to be expected and that's a risk they chose. However, it's also unacceptable that this means others have to face violence who didn't get to make that choice. Irresponsible IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Going onto Islamic threads and posting non-stop images of Mohammed must be one of the most easy troll-inducing experiences ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 You can however accept that on occasions a victim should put their hands up and admit "ok, that was a bit of a stupid thing to do?". Maybe not necessarily not this case, but in general, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.