|
Aromatic Stretch posted:Focusing on impacts on the West doesn't tell the full story. A conflict between two Nation states, one Muslim one Hindu with atrocities committed on both sides means that terror attacks are representative of the Islamic faith?
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Well, there is the whole thing with the Catholic Church and institutional paedophilia, though I'm not 100% sure how easily comparable that is. But that's specifically about the Catholic church as an organisation, not some random Christians. And even then, the only people anyone expects to be accountable are representatives of that organisation - you don't get people going around demonising all Christians and demanding public statements denouncing child abuse
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
those islamists in france are doing a better job at bashing the fash than most of the commies here
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:A conflict between two Nation states, one Muslim one Hindu with atrocities committed on both sides means that terror attacks are representative of the Islamic faith? Why was the nation of Pakistan established?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Aromatic Stretch posted:Why was the nation of Pakistan established? I'm betting it was a single, simple reason!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Okay well People in the dedicated thread have been saying things like 'every newspaper should republish Charlie Hebdo cartoons because solidarity, free speech' and so on. If they're actually racist garbage it's important to establish this so that they aren't upheld in such a way despite the understandable urge to confront the attackers. You can call this 'victim blaming' if you like but at the cost of expanding the concept to the point of unsustainability. The social rhetoric around rape and sexual assault has certain particular problems that justify a very hard line (focus on actions of women over actions of men, labelling ordinary or irrelevant behaviour as foolish irresponsibility, etc.), but those don't apply here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Peel posted:People in the dedicated thread have been saying things like 'every newspaper should republish Charlie Hebdo cartoons because solidarity, free speech' and so on. If they're actually racist garbage it's important to establish this so that they aren't upheld in such a way despite the understandable urge to confront the attackers. I can call it victim blaming because that's what it is. It doesn't matter if the publication is racist garbage or isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
 vote labour
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
TinTower posted:
It's amazing how cyclical the Tory/Labour binary system of fuckery is. Nothing tops this one: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
They're literally advertising themselves as slightly less tory than the tories
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:It's amazing how cyclical the Tory/Labour binary system of fuckery is. Nothing tops this one: this reads like a thank-you note
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:It's amazing how cyclical the Tory/Labour binary system of fuckery is. Nothing tops this one: It's an Ouroboros of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Be sure to ask any candidates you interact with in the coming months why all the tough decisions politicians make are only tough on the poor!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
The kinder, gentler form of human sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Tough on poors, tough on the causes of p... wait those are our donors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Prince John posted:I'm assuming that by describing them as an 'active, vibrant community' that you think their presence was a net positive. For those of us who weren't around then (and just going off the wikipedia article you linked), what was laudable about stopping a university from providing some student accommodation? Oh, hi. I was actually referring to the Squatting Community in the UK as a whole as an active and vibrant community - by which I am thinking of things like food co-ops, guerrilla gardening, the extended network of people with skills like plumbing, carpentry etc. who would help make houses habitable for free and so on (and some amazing parties) - and not specifically Argyle Street. However, while I am sure students everywhere appreciate your concern (as an aside do you think student housing is generally seen as a net positive to an area?), I should point out that UEA had pulled out of the proposed deal before the squatters moved in. The whole story is a pretty horrendous one with the Council intending to sell the few still occupied houses out from under their occupants and State money intended to renovate properties inhabited by council tenants being kept back until after the sale when it would only benefit UEA students. You can read about this and what happened next here: http://issuu.com/alstokes/docs/argyle_street_ if you like. There's a brief version of the story of the squat here: http://argylestreetsquat.blogspot.co.uk/ and a short documentary made in 1985 on youtube that starts here (Note: this is actually by the author of the first piece but for some reason is no longer on his youtube channel despite him complaining that this breaches his copyright...)
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Tough decisons, so called because they decide and, well, that's just tough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
TinTower posted:
When I re-trained under the New Deal, there was a guy there who had been signing on (and working on the side, growing weed) for 22 years. He only went on the course as they would have cut hes' benefits otherwise; now he's working as a heating-engineer and paying taxes etc So, yeah sanctions are a necessary part of the system - just nothing like the ones handed out to meet targets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:I can call it victim blaming because that's what it is. It doesn't matter if the publication is racist garbage or isn't. Do you support promoting racist rhetoric? If 'no', then it matters, to the question 'should we promote the content of this publication', whether the content of the publication is racist rhetoric. If 'yes', then uh, congratulations I guess. This is what Gonzo McFee's posts you quoted and have been excoriating as 'victim blaming' are about. It is their content. Shouting a magic spell over and over is not a substitute for actually reading the posts you respond to. Here are examples of actual victim blaming for contrast: 'They had it coming, racist scum.' 'What did they expect, publishing cartoons like that?'
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Peel posted:Do you support promoting racist rhetoric? Do you think those people who drew cartoons deserve what they got? Edit: gently caress it. the content of that publication is irrelevant when discussing an atrocious act of violence against those who work for that publication. To even mention it, in the context in which it was first mentioned here, is victim blaming. The words might not read 'racist scum lol gently caress them' but the tone certainly does. Another edit: nobody has a divine right to be offended by words on a page or a loving cartoon. There. I said it. Publish whatever you want. stickyfngrdboy fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
hmmm.. no
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Do you think those people who drew cartoons deserve what they got? Expect a rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Do you think those people who drew cartoons deserve what they got? It's clearly not irrelevant if people are frothing at the mouth in defense of them. I mean, if it's just a human tragedy where people have been killed why bring the cartoons into it at all? Some lunatics killed some people, that's the story. Yeah, nobody has the divine right to not be offended, likewise nobody has the right, divine or otherwise, to escape criticism. That criticism should have been in the form of a strongly worded letter, or other such thing, and not murder. There, I said it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Peel posted:
Gonzo McFee posted:Man one minute they were for innocent people getting shot in the face now they're against it. Which is it, Charlie Hebdo? How can you read that as anything but celebratory in tone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:
Do a vice-versa with this and you'll get what the people you're arguing with have actually been saying
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Do a vice-versa with this and you'll get what the people you're arguing with have actually been saying Read the post above yours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Eagerly awaiting the parody image of a caricature of a french man clutching the french constitution being riddled with bullets while biting satire says how poo poo it is at stopping bullets. It's just satire, like they'd do on top gear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Read the post above yours. So what? The point repeatedly made by several posters is that this is likely to spur a right-wing reaction that doubles down on a lot of problematic poo poo, with people voicing the same attitudes in 'solidarity'. The fact something terrible happened doesn't make those attitudes any more acceptable, and vice-versa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Eagerly awaiting the parody image of a caricature of a french man clutching the french constitution being riddled with bullets while biting satire says how poo poo it is at stopping bullets. If someone made that and published it tomorrow then what would you say the chances of them and all their colleagues being shot was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Eagerly awaiting the parody image of a caricature of a french man clutching the french constitution being riddled with bullets while biting satire says how poo poo it is at stopping bullets. Haha you're using the Stewart Lee voice very good
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:So what? The point repeatedly made by several posters is that this is likely to spur a right-wing reaction that doubles down on a lot of problematic poo poo, with people voicing the same attitudes in 'solidarity'. The fact something terrible happened doesn't make those attitudes any more acceptable, and vice-versa. Is there evidence that the publication has made a significant negative difference to Muslim/non-Muslim relations? Other than reprinting a cartoon featuring the prophet, which is almost certainly the motive for the violence today, of course. Maybe there is, and if so I'd be happy to read it. It will stir a right wing reaction because the right wing need only the slightest excuse to react. They'd react if the publication, country, or individualtargeted was... Name one. Idiots who now hold the opinion 'Muslims are all evil' held that opinion before today's events, and they will hold that opinion no matter what happens. They certainly won't read satire, even bad, perhaps racist satire, and become racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Do you think those people who drew cartoons deserve what they got? No, of course not. Will you stop leaping to conclusions like this? quote:Edit: gently caress it. the content of that publication is irrelevant when discussing an atrocious act of violence against those who work for that publication. To even mention it, in the context in which it was first mentioned here, is victim blaming. The words might not read 'racist scum lol gently caress them' but the tone certainly does. Total Meatlove posted:How can you read that as anything but celebratory in tone. Mea culpa though, I only went back the one page the reply window supplies when I made that post, so I didn't consider the earlier worse posting and how it would have raised tensions. But McFee's posts that he was directly arguing with were still legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Peel posted:to which its supposed racism is directly relevant. Fair enough, it was a point easily missed. As for the racism, its somehow become an accepted point in this thread, but I've not seen any proof of the claim. From their front pages and cartoons, they're crass and immature and offensive, but they're not 'punching down', they're punching everywhere and everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Blue Star Error posted:Is it possible these gunmen did it to draw attention away from Ched Evans getting a contract at Oldham? Post of the day - brilliant! Total Meatlove posted:Fair enough, it was a point easily missed. I was just coming here to post this - I've seen them described (now in multiple news sources) as a hard left wing, anti-establishment, anti-racism and anti-religion satirical paper to whom no topic is sacrosanct. Characterising them as a rag with racist goals doesn't seem right. Even the picture posted above with the bullets is more a bad taste joke about the futility of faith than "celebrating protestors being shot" or being "for innocent people being shot". The Beeb has an article about the French satirical tradition and Charlie Hebdo's place in it in case anyone hasn't read it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:That's not news that's pornography. Which makes it entirely appropriate to put in the news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
The odd thing is the dedicated thread paints a far more nuanced view on the politics of Charlie Hebdo, including a fair bit of posting on their anti-racist rhetoric. Prince John posted:I was just coming here to post this - I've seen them described (now in multiple news sources) as a hard left wing, anti-establishment, anti-racism and anti-religion satirical paper to whom no topic is sacrosanct. Characterising them as a rag with racist goals doesn't seem right. Even the picture posted above with the bullets is more a bad taste joke about the futility of faith than "celebrating protestors being shot" or being "for innocent people being shot". But then this is the UKMT, if you aren't 100% clean you are Hitler 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Man one minute they were for innocent people getting shot in the face now they're against it. Which is it, Charlie Hebdo? Jesus loving Christ man, come on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
The Sun wants to protect free speech by giving the intelligence services more snooping powers. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
It was a tasteless joke and I apologise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:It was a tasteless joke and I apologise. They died for their beliefs. To refrain from making crass and tasteless jokes at their expense is completely at odds with their martyrdom. We should be ripping the piss out of them at every available opportunity, it is what they would have wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:21
|
|