polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:04pm:

See this is what you do FD - twist complicated issues into simplistic black and white with these silly one liners.

Yet that is exactly what you are suggesting Gandalf - calling for self censorship in response to terrorism targeted at achieving self censorship.


Quote:

Am I an apologist for terrorists, and therefore a de-facto enemy of freedom if I don't militantly declare my 'solidarity' with victims of terrorists who felt offended - and instead call on people to act more respectfully and that such attacks reflect genuine grievances felt by a segment of society that should be addressed?

I realise you are trying desperately to make it seem more complicated or nuanced than it is, but there is a reason why the response from non-Muslims was nearly universally the oppsite of what you propose, even amonst the professional butlickers in parliament. You have previously acknowledged the problem of the victimhood narrative that Muslims reflexibvley parrot. Now you are being part of that problem. Whatever vague grievances you want to whine about come a distant second to our freedom in the face of such open, hostile and targeted attacks, and to suggest self censorship as the solution proves that your claimed support for freedom of speech is typical Islamic window dressing. If you had any real concern for the plight of your fellow Muslims after the next batch of cartoonists get slaughtered, you would not be so eager to push the terrorists agenda on their behalf. I am sure you can see that cliff coming.

Perhaps it is time to go back to that question you have been refusing to answer - what exactly are these 'western liberal morals' you claim to be the standard bearer for? It obviously isn't freedom of speech, but something you consider more important, so much so that you would redefine freedom of speech in pursuit of this agenda.

Could you, perhaps, be the standard bearer for Islam, while trying to dress it up as something else?


Quote:

Obviously its implicit that people have the right to be dicks - but once we all accept that premise, freedom should be compatible with anything and everything - up to and including imploring people not to be dicks.

This is true, but if you suggest that is the appropriate response to your fellow co-religionists slaughtering innocent people in an effort to take that right away using fear, then you become part of that apparatus of fear, in the same way that someone using freedom of speech to call for a legal ban on being a dick is using their freedom to undermine freedom. If it was not in response to Charlie Hebdo this would not be an issue, but whether you like it or not, Charlie Hebdo, and the broader anti-freedom campaign from the ummah which it forms part of, forces us all to choose a side, and you chose the wrong one. Freedom is entirely compatible with using freedom to undermine freedom, but if you claim at the same time to be a standard bearer for freedom, I am forced to question your sincerity.


Quote:

Think about where your simplistic logic ends up: if you adhere to your version of freedom, you must self-censor lest you end up agreeing with the terrorists - right?

No.

While it is true that I would not normally have much interest in Muhammed cartoons, beyond their comedic value, what compelled me to put that cartoon on the home page of this site was the fear I felt in doing so. It was the effectiveness of the fear campaign that made me speak for the sole purpose of exercising my freedom to do so. Normally I would consider this an empty gesture, like Eminem carrying on about the FCC, but not in the reality we were faced with. For the same reason I also denied the holocaust to affirm my freedom to so.

If it helps you understand, I have also seriously considered donning a letterbox outfit in defence of freedom of dress/expression. In any other context I would consider that outfit ludicrous, and even speak out against it (within the boundaries set by my own personal set of values, Gandalf style...) Though again, I have spoken out in defense of it when I saw someone attempting to use fear and intimidation to deny others their freedom to wear it. This is what it means to genuinely value freedom - to put aside your differences and be prepared to act in defense of freedom when the need arises.

Not so simplistic and black and white is it Gandalf?


Quote:

Under my version of freedom (true freedom), I can actually agree with the terrorists that offending is wrong and that people should stop doing it, while at the same time be unequivocal in standing up for people's right to offend

By calling for self censorship in response to terrorism aimed at achieving self-censorship? You might as well argue that Sinn Fein did not share the IRA's agenda because they dressed it up differently. I can appreciate your contortionism, but if you think this helps the cause of freedom you are wrong. You are wrong because you are doing exactly what you accuse me of - misrepresenting the true threats to our freedom.

Quote:

Your freedom on the other hand is spineless - terrified of expressing the 'wrong' freedom - lest it sounds too much like what the terrorists are complaining about.

What is the wrong freedom Gandalf? The freedom to undermine freedom while pretending to be the standard bearer for it? I am not terrified, I just choose not to. But rest assured if people start dying for their right to public moral contortionism, I will do yoga with you.


Quote:

Your distorted version says you have to stand in "solidarity" with hate-mongers who are victims of their own bigotry

Here's a definition of freedom for you Gandalf - I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. This is not a joke, though you and Karnal do your best to make it one. And it means exactly what you suggest - that to genuinely value freedom means standing in solidarity with those who you would otherwise have nothing to do with, as many now do with Charlie Hebdo. This is not a distortion, it is the true meaning, and it is why you find it impossible to come up with a coherent alternative meaning.

If you run from the fight at the 'show some solidarity' stage, whose side are you going to be on when the poo really hits the fan?


Quote:

and wouldn't dream of criticising them or calling them out for what they are - bigots

I criticised them on the previous page of that thread Gandalf. Perhaps you didn't notice. I have no problem with your criticism. I have a problem with your argument that a call for self censorship is the appropriate response to terrorism targeted at achieving self censorship, and that doing this somehow makes you a standard bearer for 'true' freedom of speech.

freediver wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:51pm:

While it is true that I would not normally have much interest in Muhammed cartoons, beyond their comedic value, what compelled me to put that cartoon on the home page of this site was the fear I felt in doing so. It was the effectiveness of the fear campaign that made me speak for the sole purpose of exercising my freedom to do so.

Oh puhlease. How could you possibly feel fearful for publishing what just about every man and his dog were rushing to also publish? As an anonymous administrator of a little-known politics forum? Give me a break FD. You're not going to be a martyr, trust me.

Lets cut the bullshit - you don't fear doing this, you relish it. What you clearly do fear though is the possibility that you might say something that the terrorists agree with. The possibility that you might have to acknowledge that the terrorists actually have a legitimate point. So you must ruthlessly shun any such thoughts as heinously anti-freedom, and all who entertain them must be demonised. Its nothing to do with standing up for freedom, it is as you say all about "choosing a side".

That is actually about as anti-freedom as you can get - without stooping to the terrorists level of course. How dare you claim the hero/martyr mantle - bravely anonymously standing up against the big bad muslims - when you are the most spineless of all. You go out of your way to avoid having to deal with the difficult underlying issues, instead opting for the easy option - a simplistic, black and white wedge game. This is true cowardice. True freedom involves having the courage to say whats right - even if it means saying what the terrorists are saying as well. To say it because its right, not because it conforms to an anti-Islam narrative.

Good on you for confronting your fear and blaming Islam, FD.

That’s very brave.

Quote:

Oh puhlease. How could you possibly feel fearful for publishing what just about every man and his dog were rushing to also publish? As an anonymous administrator of a little-known politics forum? Give me a break FD. You're not going to be a martyr, trust me.

I am not anonymous. Nor do I expect to be killed for my actions. But fear is an emotional response, not a rational one. I do not pretend to be in the same situation as a newspaper editor deciding whether to commission or publish cartoons, but I do hope that the solidarity movement makes it a little easier for them.


Quote:

Lets cut the bullshit - you don't fear doing this, you relish it.

Sounds like you are creating a false dichotomy here Gandalf.


Quote:

What you clearly do fear though is the possibility that you might say something that the terrorists agree with.

Like I already pointed out, I made several criticisms of Charlie Hebdo that you and the terrorists would agree with. All I refrain from is suggesting that people self-censor in response to terrorism targeted at achieving self censorship. This is a rational response, not an emotional one.


Quote:

The possibility that you might have to acknowledge that the terrorists actually have a legitimate point.

I am not arguing with terrorists. I am arguing with you. I have not suggested you have no point regarding all the grievances these people may have. I disagree with you about whether promoting self-censorship in response to terrorism targeted at achieving self censorship is appropriate.


Quote:

So you must ruthlessly shun any such thoughts as heinously anti-freedom

One more time Gandalf. Hopefully this time it sticks. I disagree with you about whether promoting self-censorship in response to terrorism targeted at achieving self censorship is appropriate.


Quote:

Its nothing to do with standing up for freedom, it is as you say all about "choosing a side".

I choose to stand up for freedom. That puts me on the side of standing up for freedom.


Quote:

You go out of your way to avoid having to deal with the difficult underlying issues

I am happy to discuss the underlying issues, and have probably done so countless times (you are yet to identify them). I just see no point while you maintain that promoting self-censorship in response to terrorism targeted at achieving self censorship is appropriate. Whatever grievances you would like to whine about come a distant second to slaughtering cartoonists.


Quote:

True freedom involves having the courage to say whats right - even if it means saying what the terrorists are saying as well.

I am saying what is right. I have said things that you and the terrorists would agree with about Charlie Hebdo. I also point out what you are wrong about -  that promoting self-censorship in response to terrorism targeted at achieving self censorship is appropriate. Would you care to comment on that point, or will you waste yet another post pretending it is not an issue?

FD, when will you be donning a letterbox outfit in defence of freedom of dress/expression?

I'm curious.

freediver wrote on Sep 9^th, 2015 at 1:05pm:

I choose to stand up for freedom. That puts me on the side of standing up for freedom.

Thats just the thing - you don't. When was the last time you stood up against Sprint's call to ban Islam or burn mosques? There are daily attacks on muslims here FD calling on their freedoms to be curbed, and not a peep from you. You even managed to find time to mock muslims for protesting against the push to ban Hizb-ut tahrir - an organization that has completely renounced violence.

You have clearly made a decision to "stand up" for one version of freedom - I call it freeeeedom. It involves ruthlessly pursuing muslims - usually indiscriminately - and ignoring all other threats to freedom.

I see you decided to yet again ignore the issue of your promotion of self-censorship in response to terrorism targeted at achieving self censorship - preferring instead to read into things I have not said. Are you conceding the point, or just hoping no-one will notice?


Quote:

Thats just the thing - you don't. When was the last time you stood up against Sprint's call to ban Islam or burn mosques?

I don't ever recall seeing him suggest we burn mosques. That was probably Karnal, who I also usually ignore. I'm not going to go back through my posts and find it for you.


Quote:

There are daily attacks on muslims here FD calling on their freedoms to be curbed, and not a peep from you.

I just gave some examples where I did feel the need to speak up.

If you want to think about it extremely deeply, freedom is:

accommodation
food
utilities eg electricity
luxury goods eg televisions, books
disposable money to be spent where required
safety
punishment for disturbing safety

and that's pretty much all it is.

freediver wrote on Sep 9^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

I see you decided to yet again ignore the issue of your promotion of self-censorship in response to terrorism targeted at achieving self censorship - preferring instead to read into things I have not said. Are you conceding the point, or just hoping no-one will notice? Quote: Thats just the thing - you don't. When was the last time you stood up against Sprint's call to ban Islam or burn mosques? I don't ever recall seeing him suggest we burn mosques. That was probably Karnal, who I also usually ignore. I'm not going to go back through my posts and find it for you. [quote]There are daily attacks on muslims here FD calling on their freedoms to be curbed, and not a peep from you.

I just gave some examples where I did feel the need to speak up.[/quote]

Ignore? Never. You’re reading this right now.

Evade? Ah.

What was it you said about Abu again, FD?

freediver wrote on Sep 9^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

I see you decided to yet again ignore the issue of your promotion of self-censorship in response to terrorism targeted at achieving self censorship

Strange, because if you bothered to notice I basically haven't been talking about anything else. It takes real courage to be willing to agree with the terrorists that causing offense for offense sake is wrong. Far easier to just jump on the bandwagon, avoid the difficult issues and continue the brain-dead ranting against the big bad muslims. Ring any bells? Its not about promoting self-censorship, its standing up for what you think is right. I'm not going to stop saying what I believe is wrong is wrong just because the terrorists happen to agree with me - and are trying to impose their worldview by force. That doesn't make what is wrong any less wrong.  Thats why your freeeedom is spineless - you sacrifice standing up for what is right lest it might be perceived as giving legitimacy to the terrorists - and so it is actually you who self-censors.


freediver wrote on Sep 9^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

I don't ever recall seeing him suggest we burn mosques.

No of course not. Just like you've probably never noticed that he calls for Islam to be banned about 5 times every day. Posts from a wide range of regulars here calling for muslim rights to be systematically stripped is a near-daily occurrence all over this board. I guess all those slip your attention right? Of course it doesn't mean you agree with them, but for someone who is so adamant about "standing up for freedom" - as you just said in your last post, it makes no sense to so consistently turn a blind-eye to such a concerted attack on freedom under your very nose. Is this what you mean by choosing a side FD?

Only the terrorists aren’t arguing against offence for offence’s sake, G. They’re just saying offending them is haram.

Just like the old boy’s offensiveness gag - for the old boy, the only person who has the right to be offended is him.

Great minds think alike, innit.

Where justice reigns, 'tis freedom to obey.
- James Montgomery


1 Peter 2:16
....not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.


"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."
- Voltaire (1694-1778)


The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom is Courage.
- Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
- Edmund Burke


Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.
- Edmund Burke


I can understand a child being afraid of the dark, but I cannot understand an adult being afraid of the light.
- Plato


Those who voluntarily put power into the hands of a tyrant or an enemy, must not wonder if it be at last turned against themselves.
- Aesop


"There are only two races in the world, the decent and the indecent."
- Victor Frankl - Nazi Holocaust survivor


"Remember, democracy never lasts long.
It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.
There was never a democracy yet that didn't commit suicide."
- John Admas - USA President, 1797-1801


No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise.
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the other forms which have been tried from time to time.
- Sir Winston Churchill


Proverbs 12:17
He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness...




.



Freedom is inextricably bound up with the personal and moral responsibility of the individual, imo.

Unfortunately, it seems true, that some/many people will only ever choose to abuse the freedoms [and rights] which they have access to.

Especially so, imo, if those freedoms and rights have simply been 'gifted' to persons/individuals [and not 'purchased' with some cost].

And there is still nothing wrong with Islam.

If you are an opponent of Islam, you obviously do not believe it is the inspired word of God.

Therefore, you give it no credibility. And call Mohammed a pedo.

Good for you.

So in your eyes it is not even a legitimate representation of God. And in its' own book is a system supporting rape, murder and looting.

Hooray for you.

As a political system it functions. Forgetting the religious aspect.

Politically it is stable. Political Islam kills rapists, murderers, bans drugs and cuts off the hands of thieves.

Communism as a system is/was the enemy. Islam never was.

Karnal wrote on Sep 9^th, 2015 at 10:58pm:

Only the terrorists aren’t arguing against offence for offence’s sake, G. They’re just saying offending them is haram.

Of course - by "agree" I mean as in inverted commas.

I was just trying to make it more poignant for FD - you don't have to feel bad about saying something is wrong just because the terrorists are also saying its wrong (for whatever reason). You say whats right because its right, not because you're terrified by who else might be saying it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2015 at 7:27am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 10:58pm: Only the terrorists aren’t arguing against offence for offence’s sake, G. They’re just saying offending them is haram. Of course - by "agree" I mean as in inverted commas. I was just trying to make it more poignant for FD - you don't have to feel bad about saying something is wrong just because the terrorists are also saying its wrong (for whatever reason). You say whats right because its right, not because you're terrified by who else might be saying it.

Well yes, but FD does seem rather sensitive about you saying he said things he didn't say.

You know, after 8 years of FD saying things Abu didn't say.

Take the rape in marriage argument. FD argues that raping wives is a common Islamic practice because there is no proscribed punishment for wife-rape under Islamic law. When Abu showed Islamic texts that don't support rape in marriage, FD did his nit-picky thing with the quotes and ended up framing Abu as a serial wife raper.

You're one too, G. You're a Muslim. And do you know? FD can make you guilty of whatever he wants. This, you see, is Freeeeeedom.

And don't you ever forget it.

Gandalf do you think that responding to terrorist attacks targetted at achieving self censorship by calling for self censorship and rejecting the solidarity movement is consistent with being a standard bearer for freedom of speech?


Quote:

Its not about promoting self-censorship

So you keep saying, yet apparently that is all you have been talking about.


Quote:

its standing up for what you think is right

Is this the western liberal morals you also claim to be a standard bearer for? Because last time I asked you what you meant, you claimed to mean freedom of speech, while apparently meaning that all satire is evil if you can find someone who takes offense.


Quote:

I'm not going to stop saying what I believe is wrong is wrong just because the terrorists happen to agree with me

Here we go again Gandalf. This is the same thing I keep telling you. I said it about a dozen times in the previous post, to no avail. I am not asking you to say it is right or wrong. I am suggesting that if you really were the standard bearer for freedom of speech, you would refrain from calling for self censorship in response to terrorist attacks targeted at achieving self censorship and instead show some solidarity in support of freedom of speech. This has nothing at all to do with whether the speech is right or wrong. In fact it is most important to defend freedom of speech when you disagree with what is being said, and there is nothing contradictory in disagreeing with someone while defending their right to say it. The contradiction arises in calling for self censorship in response to terrorist attacks targeted at achieving self censorship while claiming to be a standard bearer for freedom of speech. This is why I keep accusing you of ignoring what I am actually saying, because you are ignoring what I am actually saying.


Quote:

Thats why your freeeedom is spineless - you sacrifice standing up for what is right

Earth to Gandalf - I am not doing this, nor suggesting you do it.


Quote:

Politically it is stable. Political Islam kills rapists, murderers, bans drugs and cuts off the hands of thieves.

Political Islam kills people who have sex outside of the recognised marriage/slavery institutions. Whether it was rape only seems to affect who gets punished (ie the woman gets off if she is not a willing participant, in theory at least if not in practice), not what the punishment is.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2015 at 12:56pm:

I am suggesting that if you really were the standard bearer for freedom of speech, you would refrain from calling for self censorship in response to terrorist attacks targeted at achieving self censorship and instead show some solidarity in support of freedom of speech.

Thats correct FD - true followers of freeeeeedom engage in self-censorship, thats what I've been saying all along.

Freedom contains the seeds of it's own destruction Gandalf - the right of people like you to try to undermine it. Calling for self censorship may be a protected part of freedom of speech, but is not the promotion of freedom of speech.

Rather than actually supporting freedom of speech, you seem to merely tolerate it, and have somehow convinced yourself that this makes you a standard bearer for it, because you are so much more civilised than your fellow Muslims.

When you say that these victims of terrorism were wrong, do you mean you disagree with the content, or that you take issue with the fact that they published the content?

Also, when you describe yourself as the standard bearer for western liberal morals, do you mean anything other than freedom of speech? Like that certain things (eg, mocking Muhammed) are simply wrong and should not be said, for example?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2015 at 7:27pm:

When you say that these victims of terrorism were wrong, do you mean you disagree with the content, or that you take issue with the fact that they published the content?

Both of course.

You seem stubbornly unprepared to appreciate the difference between "should not have the right to publish" and "should not publish". You seem determined to morph the two together. This is completely nonsensical to me as I think the distinction is absolutely crucial.

For you, the fact that my conviction that publishing bigoted and hateful material is wrong just happened to coincide with the terrorists campaign to force them to stop - automatically makes my conviction incompatible with free speech. Presumably you would be ok with calls for self-censorship as long as there weren't any terrorists around? That seems to be what you are saying.

Either way, my point stands - anyone who believes in and stands up for free speech shouldn't feel conflicted in any way for saying that hateful and bigoted speech is wrong and should be avoided. You simply can't get around the fact that "refraining" - as you say - from such expression for no other reason than being scared of sounding like the terrorists, is nothing less that self-censorship.

Quote:

You seem stubbornly unprepared to appreciate the difference between "should not have the right to publish" and "should not publish".

How is this different from the distinction between censorship and self censorship?


Quote:

Presumably you would be ok with calls for self-censorship as long as there weren't any terrorists around? That seems to be what you are saying.

Sure. The opening posts go into great detail on this. Given the context, it is hard to take you seriously as a standard bearer for free speech when you think it is more important to call for self censorship that to show solidarity in defence of freedom of speech.


Quote:

Either way, my point stands - anyone who believes in and stands up for free speech shouldn't feel conflicted in any way for saying that hateful and bigoted speech is wrong and should be avoided.

Are you still talking about the Muhammed cartoons? In what way are you standing up for freedom of speech? The only aspect you are defending is your right to undermine freedom of speech at the same time as your fellow Muslims are slaughtering people in an effort to undermine freedom of speech. You ridicule the suggestion that there is even a threat to freedom of speech.


Quote:

You simply can't get around the fact that "refraining" - as you say - from such expression for no other reason than being scared of sounding like the terrorists, is nothing less that self-censorship.

The reason you might refrain from undermining freedom of speech is because you actually support it and recognise the insidious threat of self censorship in response to these terrorist attacks. You would put aside your agenda in defense of your core values. If the tables were turned and people were being killed for criticising the Muhammed cartoons you might have a point, buy you are merely revealing your ambivalence to these attacks on freedom of speech.

Now is the time to stand in solidarity with the cartoonists, not kick them while they are down. That is of course if you truly value freedom of speech above getting people to shut up about Muhammed. Which do you think is more important Gandalf?

Not much about the meaning of freedom. Ah well, yet another headline OP title I suppose...

Here's the thing, the very moment one utilises violence for to make their "point" their point becomes worthless and irrelevant to any other issue. Now violence is not limited to the overt and extreme violence demonstrated by terrorists (regardless of their religion by the way...). Economic sanction is a form of violence, Corporate interference, any kind of influence or meddling with socio-political systems of any other sovereign state. The list can and does go on.

As such, neither the West, Muslims, British, Irish or any other social, religious or national group who have used violence to inflict their will has any high moral ground to fall back on.

As to freedom, firstly, it seems to me that freedom means you are free to come and go as you please, free to chose what you do with your life, free to chose what you wear, the work you do (this of course has some limits thanks to the economy lots of us worship).

However, there are some natural limits to freedom... We never seem to consider these for ourselves now do we. We only want to ever limit the freedoms of others - ironically, we are not actually free to do this - people are funny like that, they push back. Perhaps the moment someone limits the freedom of another they forfeit their rights...

Of course that won't work though, we already know that more "power" to inflict one's will equates to more access to freedom - particularly that freedom that limits others freedom.

As I see it, neither the west nor the radical Muslims who use  violence to express their point of view or to inflict their freedoms onto the rest of us have any moral, social or ethical grounds to back themselves up on.

I have no idea why you keep insisting that not being afraid to say what you think is wrong is undermining free speech. Thats why your version of freedom is spineless and counter to true freedom - you must be dictated by what the terrorists do: "don't dare say that bigotry is wrong and should be avoided - thats what the terrorists want" - is basically your philosophy.


freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 9:50am:

How is this different from the distinction between censorship and self censorship?

No one is talking about self-censorship except you. As far as I'm concerned you only self-censor when you are coerced against your will to not say what you want to say. The only person advocating this is you - when you insist that being dictated to by the terrorists and "refraining" from saying what you believe should be done in the interests of free speech (go figure!). I am not interested in coercing anyone - all I would do is express my conviction that certain expressions are wrong and should be avoided. But thats not calling for self-censorship - of course I would hope that they would desist from it, but only as a result of them coming to the realization on their own that its wrong.

Quote:

I have no idea why you keep insisting that not being afraid to say what you think is wrong is undermining free speech.

If you think the exercising of free speech is wrong, and make these pronouncements in the aftermath of people being slaughtered for what they published while ridiculing the solidarity movement, then you are undermining freedom of speech. If you do this while claiming to be a standard bearer for freedom of speech, then you are a hypocrite.


Quote:

you must be dictated by what the terrorists do: "don't dare say that bigotry is wrong and should be avoided - thats what the terrorists want"

If the terrorists are making a direct attack on freedom of speech, and you are a standard bearer for freedom of speech, the choice is pretty clear Gandalf. Do you respond to the threat by showing solidarity in defense of freedom of speech, or do you mock the solidarity movement and continue calling for self censorship like nothing has happened?


Quote:

No one is talking about self-censorship except you.

I quoted you in the OP and accused you of promoting self censorship. Is that not a call for self censorship?


Quote:

As far as I'm concerned you only self-censor when you are coerced against your will to not say what you want to say.

So being a standard bearer for freedom of speeech involves being oblivious to direct attacks on freedom of speech, until they come after you personally, like the "first they came for the hippies" story? You are a standard bearer for your own freedom of speech and no-one elses? Is this what you mean by western liberal morals? Stay out of other people's battles?


Quote:

I am not interested in coercing anyone - all I would do is express my conviction that certain expressions are wrong and should be avoided.

Perhaps now would be a good time to list them Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

So being a standard bearer for freedom of speeech involves being oblivious to direct attacks on freedom of speech,

No it means staying true to your principles despite the attacks that are happening. Whats interesting here is that I've put it to you that you are engaging in self-censorship about 5 times now, and you continue to ignore it. You actually make a good case for self-censorship - or "refraining", as you put it, from saying what you believe, but you are understandably very reluctant to acknowledge it for what it is.

Would you like to clear the air now FD and acknowledge that you are calling for self-censorship? And if not, I suggest you come up with an explanation for why "refraining" from saying what you believe in, is not self-censorship.

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

I quoted you in the OP and accused you of promoting self censorship. Is that not a call for self censorship?

I just said, my understanding of self-censorship is stopping yourself from saying something - not because you believe its the right thing to do, but because you are coerced or intimidated into doing so (albeit not necessarily overtly). If you can find a quote of me stating that I agree with this behaviour, then I'll happily concede that I am a promoter of self-censorship.

But you won't, because I never promoted such behaviour. I want people to stop saying bigoted things because they arrive at the conclusion themselves that it is bigoted and inappropriate.

Quote:

No it means staying true to your principles despite the attacks that are happening.

So what are these western liberal morals you are a standard bearer for? The only answer you have given is freedom of speech, yet you insist that your conviction that certain expressions are wrong and should be avoided is more important, even in the context of your fellow Muslims trying to intimidate people into the self censorship you are promoting.

And what are these expressions that are wrong and should be avoided?


Quote:

Whats interesting here is that I've put it to you that you are engaging in self-censorship about 5 times now, and you continue to ignore it.

Disagreeing with you is not self censorship.


Quote:

You actually make a good case for self-censorship - or "refraining", as you put it, from saying what you believe,

If you actually think your "conviction that certain expressions are wrong and should be avoided" is more important than freedom of speech, then go ahead and say it. Just don't expect us to accept your sincerity when you also claim to be a standard bearer for freedom of speech.


Quote:

I just said, my understanding of self-censorship is stopping yourself from saying something - not because you believe its the right thing to do, but because you are coerced or intimidated into doing so (albeit not necessarily overtly). If you can find a quote of me stating that I agree with this behaviour, then I'll happily concede that I am a promoter of self-censorship.

Here you go Gandalf:


Quote:

Am I an apologist for terrorists, and therefore a de-facto enemy of freedom if I don't militantly declare my 'solidarity' with victims of terrorists who felt offended - and instead call on people to act more respectfully and that such attacks reflect genuine grievances felt by a segment of society that should be addressed?

Quote:

But you won't, because I never promoted such behaviour. I want people to stop saying bigoted things because they arrive at the conclusion themselves that it is bigoted and inappropriate.

Because the people who threaten to kill them for saying these things have "genuine grievances"?

Can you list the bigoted things you think are wrong and should be avoided? Does it include Muhammed cartoons?

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 12:09pm:

Here you go Gandalf:

Thats not self-censorship. As I've already explained.

Because you want people to refrain from mocking Muhammed out of respect for Muslim terrorists and their "genuine grievances" rather than fear?

What are these grievances that are more important than the threat to freedom of speech posed by self censorship in response to these attacks? If it is so important to address them instead, why can you not say what they are?

Do you think that getting people to "freely" refrain from mocking Muhammed will assist the terrorists in getting them to refrain out of fear?

What are these expressions that "are wrong and should be avoided." Is this more important that standing in solidarity with victims of Islamic terrorism?

What, other than tolerating freedom of speech and pretending to support it, are these western liberal morals that you are the standard bearer for?

Do you see any value in the solidarity movement that arose from the Charlie Hebdo massacre in defending freedom of expression?

Questions, questions.

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Because you want people to refrain from mocking Muhammed out of respect for Muslim terrorists and their "genuine grievances" rather than fear?

No. Try again.


freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Do you think that getting people to "freely" refrain from mocking Muhammed will assist the terrorists in getting them to refrain out of fear?

Its not about "getting" people to do anything. You are way off track because you are fixated on this furphy of self censorship.

FD do you believe saying that what Charlie Hebdo was wrong and that they shouldn't have done it is, in and of itself, undermining free speech? Thats not calling for self censorship by the way. Do you actually think that "refraining" from such talk when you believe it to be true is not self-censorship, and is completely in line with freedom of speech? Please explain this specific point for me FD, and stop tapdancing around it.

Quote:

Its not about "getting" people to do anything.

What is the politically correct term for Muslims getting people to stop drawing funny pictures of Muhammed (out of respect, rather than fear)?


Quote:

FD do you believe saying that what Charlie Hebdo was wrong and that they shouldn't have done it is, in and of itself, undermining free speech?

If this is your response to the massacre, along with mocking the solidarity movement, yes. It's the standard good Muslim / bad Muslim routine. You both want the same thing. You ask non-Muslims to do this out of respect, they ask us to do it out of fear. While the terrorism continues, it is inescapable that anything you do to further the agenda of the terrorists will, surprise surprise, further their agenda.

Do you think that getting people to "freely" refrain from mocking Muhammed will assist the terrorists in getting them to refrain out of fear?

What are these grievances that are more important than the threat to freedom of speech posed by self censorship in response to these attacks? If it is so important to address them instead, why can you not say what they are?

What are these expressions that "are wrong and should be avoided." Are they so wrong that you cannot even talk about them to explain what people should not say? Is this more important that standing in solidarity with victims of Islamic terrorism?

What, other than tolerating freedom of speech and pretending to support it, are these western liberal morals that you are the standard bearer for? Is not drawing pictures of Muhammed a western liberal moral?

Do you see any value in the solidarity movement that arose from the Charlie Hebdo massacre in defending freedom of expression?

So let me get this straight fd, this whole time you've assumed that my arguments were all about a response to the terrorists - despite everything i've said to the contrary?

Good to see you're paying attention fd  :D

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 8:26am:

What are these grievances that are more important than the threat to freedom of speech posed by self censorship in response to these attacks?

Its as you always love to say a false dichotomy. Its not one or the other. I'm not proposing that anything is more important than freedom of speech - I'm saying you can criticise people's speech and even say they shouldn't have said it - and not be an underminer of free speech.

And what are those things? In this case I was talking about offense for offense's sake (as explained before). Its really nothing more than if I was debating someone about Islam and they said to me "your opinion doesn't count - you're a filthy muslim" - and I said in response "that was a stupid thing to say, and you shouldn't have said it". Presumably in your book, if that same person had previously been physically attacked for saying something similar, my response would be undermining freedom.

Quote:

So let me get this straight fd, this whole time you've assumed that my arguments were all about a response to the terrorists

You were mocking the Charlie Hebdo solidarity movement. It's pretty hard to do that in a vaccuum.


Quote:

Its as you always love to say a false dichotomy.

True, but it is your false dichotomy.


Quote:

Its not one or the other.

So niether is more important?


Quote:

I'm not proposing that anything is more important than freedom of speech

That's what it sounds like Gandalf.


Quote:

I'm saying you can criticise people's speech and even say they shouldn't have said it - and not be an underminer of free speech.

Except of course that your actions undermine freedom of speech.


Quote:

And what are those things? In this case I was talking about offense for offense's sake (as explained before).

So the "genuine grievance" of the Muslims who slaughtered the cartoonists were offensive cartoons, and we must address that grievance before considering the freedom of the cartoonists to make those cartoons?


Quote:

Its really nothing more than if I was debating someone about Islam and they said to me "your opinion doesn't count - you're a filthy muslim" - and I said in response "that was a stupid thing to say, and you shouldn't have said it". Presumably in your book, if that same person had previously been physically attacked for saying something similar, my response would be undermining freedom.

It is more than that Gandalf. It is a global campaign by Muslims, using every avenue available - law, terrorism, demands for respect etc, to destroy freedom of speech. You cannot claim to be ignorant of that. That you claim to only play a small part in this campaign does not contradict the fact that you share the terrorists agenda and put that agenda ahead of standing up for freedom of speech.

A global campaign by Muslims to undermine the Freeeeedoms of decent white people everywhere. Sinister, no?

Let’s all take a deep breath and blame Islam.

Oh look another brain-dead reply from FD.

Ignored.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 2:57pm:

So the "genuine grievance" of the Muslims who slaughtered the cartoonists were offensive cartoons

::)

No words.

Gandalf, which one is more important - getting people to cease "offence for offence's sake", or standing up for freedom of speech? If you choose to respond to the Charlie Hebdo attacks by calling for self censorship rather than showing solidarity, why is that not a demonstration of what you consider to be more important?

Are the offensive Muhammed cartoons the only "genuine grievance" you think the Charlie Hebdo terrorists have that you think we should address? How do you suggest we address this grievance to their satisfaction?

Why is fear of terrorism the only thing that counts towards self censorship in your opinion?

Do you think that getting people to "freely" refrain from mocking Muhammed will assist the terrorists in getting them to refrain out of fear?

What other expressions do you think are "wrong and should be avoided"?

What, other than tolerating freedom of speech and pretending to support it, are these "western liberal morals" that you are the standard bearer for? Is not drawing pictures of Muhammed a western liberal moral?

Do you see any value in the solidarity movement that arose from the Charlie Hebdo massacre in defending freedom of expression?

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 9:18pm:

Gandalf, which one is more important - getting people to cease "offence for offence's sake", or standing up for freedom of speech? If you choose to respond to the Charlie Hebdo attacks by calling for self censorship rather than showing solidarity, why is that not a demonstration of what you consider to be more important?

Once more with feeling FD: it is not one or the other - and by the way its not "getting people" to do anything, its saying what I believe is wrong, and (unlike you) not being terrified in saying so because the terrorists might happen to agree with me. Just like the example I used - there is nothing "anti-freedom" in telling someone that their abuse is stupid and uncalled for. And if you think that somehow amounts to calling for "self censorship" then you are completely clueless.


freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 9:18pm:

Are the offensive Muhammed cartoons the only "genuine grievance" you think the Charlie Hebdo terrorists have that you think we should address? How do you suggest we address this grievance to their satisfaction?

This is unbelievably stupid FD. All the more frustrating given how specifically I explained this for you in the most simple language before. These grievances have nothing to do with the terrorists, they are just opportunists trying to exploit a sensitive atmosphere. Obviously its not them I'm talking about - but a marginalised muslim community feeling deep alienation and a deep sense of "us" vs "them" - due to a whole host of societal issues. The cartoons are just the tip of the iceberg. All explained before of course.


freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 9:18pm:

Do you think that getting people to "freely" refrain from mocking Muhammed will assist the terrorists in getting them to refrain out of fear?

This is why your freedom fails. I don't tell someone their abuse is wrong while carefully weighing up what the terrorists will make of it. I tell them its wrong because its wrong, and the terrorists don't even come into the equation. Its really as simple as that. Reference also to your brain-dead responses in your previous post about my freedom to say what I believe is wrong is wrong - is tied up to a grand global muslim conspiracy to shut down free speech. Your freeeeedom is not about promoting free speech for freedom's sake (otherwise you wouldn't be calling for self-censorship) - its about  religiously sticking to a meme to wedge muslims. To "take a side" - as you so eloquently put it before. Thats why (post 2007) you are so careful to avoid  standing up for freedom when Sprint and others call for muslims rights to be stripped here on a daily basis.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 9:18pm:

Do you see any value in the solidarity movement that arose from the Charlie Hebdo massacre in defending freedom of expression?

If "solidarity" simply means standing up for the right of people to say what they want without fear of intimidation or violence - then sure, sign me up.

But if, as I suspect, you mean you should reproduce their cartoons in some fake reverence and not dare suggest that they were in any way inappropriate and that profiting from hate and bigotry was wrong - then I guess you can count me out.

Quote:

Once more with feeling FD: it is not one or the other

I am not asking you to choose one and not the other. I am asking which is more important.


Quote:

and by the way its not "getting people" to do anything

What isn't? Being a standard bearer? What kind of standard bearer are you? Why bother making an argument that people should self censor if your intention is not the get people to self censor?


Quote:

Just like the example I used - there is nothing "anti-freedom" in telling someone that their abuse is stupid and uncalled for.

Please see my previous response to this.


Quote:

And if you think that somehow amounts to calling for "self censorship" then you are completely clueless.

Why is fear of terrorism the only thing that counts towards self censorship in your opinion?


Quote:

These grievances have nothing to do with the terrorists

So why did you bring it up? Were the terrorists not motivated by these genuine grievances? Would addressing these grievances not help avoid terrorism? Is that not why you introduced the argument?


Quote:

they are just opportunists trying to exploit a sensitive atmosphere

So they do not share the genuine grievances of other Muslims? The Muslims who kill people for mocking Muhammed are in fact the only Muslims who are not offended by mockery of Muhammed?


Quote:

Obviously its not them I'm talking about - but a marginalised muslim community feeling deep alienation and a deep sense of "us" vs "them"

Have you not previously argued that this marginalisation is a cause of terrorism? Is it now nothing to do with terrorism?


Quote:

The cartoons are just the tip of the iceberg.

What is the rest of the iceberg?


Quote:

This is why your freedom fails. I don't tell someone their abuse is wrong while carefully weighing up what the terrorists will make of it.

I wasn't asking you to. However, you are assisting their cause whether you like it or not, and whether they make anything of it or not. Hence my question about whether you realise you are assisting their cause - not what you think they make of it.


Quote:

Reference also to your brain-dead responses in your previous post about my freedom to say what I believe is wrong is wrong - is tied up to a grand global muslim conspiracy to shut down free speech.

It is tied to it, whether you like it or not. You are motivated by the same thing - Islam. You have the same agenda - getting people to stop mocking Muhammed. Willful ignorance of the consequences of your actions does not invalidate those consequences. As a standard bearer for freedom of speech you should recognise this.


Quote:

Your freeeeedom is not about promoting free speech for freedom's sake (otherwise you wouldn't be calling for self-censorship) - its about  religiously sticking to a meme to wedge muslims. To "take a side" - as you so eloquently put it before.

Is it unfair for me to suggest you might want to refrain from helping Muslim terrorists, the OIC, etc, destroy freedom of speech, merely on account of your claim to be the standard bearer for "true" freedom of speech?


Quote:

Thats why (post 2007) you are so careful to avoid  standing up for freedom when Sprint and others call for muslims rights to be stripped here on a daily basis.

You have previously defended me when other Muslims and various apologists made the same accusation.


Quote:

If "solidarity" simply means standing up for the right of people to say what they want without fear of intimidation or violence - then sure, sign me up.

Aren't you already the standard bearer?


Quote:

But if, as I suspect, you mean you should reproduce their cartoons in some fake reverence and not dare suggest that they were in any way inappropriate and that profiting from hate and bigotry was wrong - then I guess you can count me out.

Most of the solidarity movement refrained from reproducing the cartoons. But they are still a long way from your response.

Do you think this solidarity movement is more important than encouraging people to do what the terrorists want them to do?

How do you suggest we address the "genuine grievance" Muslim terrorists have with regard to Muhammed cartoons?

What other expressions do you think are "wrong and should be avoided"?

What, other than tolerating freedom of speech and pretending to support it, are these "western liberal morals" that you are the standard bearer for? Is not drawing pictures of Muhammed a western liberal moral?

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2015 at 12:43pm:

I am not asking you to choose one and not the other. I am asking which is more important.

Good one FD - its not about choosing, except its about choosing which one is more important. FD logic innit  :P

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2015 at 12:43pm:

Please see my previous response to this.

Ah yes, the global muslim conspiracy. I cannot object to offensive/abusive language without undermining free speech - because the very idea is apparently inseparable to a global campaign by terrorists - who also object to offense and abuse. Therefore I must self-censor if I value the importance of free speech. Make sense? Well it does if you continually dodge the fact that you're calling for self-censorship in an apparent bid to avoid self-censorship, like you do.

Quote:

Good one FD - its not about choosing, except its about choosing which one is more important. FD logic innit

Well done. It is about which one is more important. Not a false dichotomy between the two. That would be a false false dichotomy.


Quote:

I cannot object to offensive/abusive language without undermining free speech

Particularly in the context of responding to the Charlie Hebdo attacks. This is why so many people who would normally distance themselves from Charlie Hebdo chose to put aside their differences and make a statement of solidarity instead - because they recognise the grave and evolving threat to freedom of speech. This is what people do who actually value freedom of speech, particularly if they consider their support for freedom of speech to be more improtant than getting people to stop drawing funny pictures of Muhammed.


Quote:

because the very idea is apparently inseparable to a global campaign by terrorists

Because you share the same agenda Gandalf.


Quote:

Therefore I must self-censor if I value the importance of free speech.

You would choose to stand in solidarity rather than whine about the "genuine grievances" of Muslims who have to put up with freedom of speech, if that was what you considered to be more important. This would not be censoring your actual views. If you do not consider freedom of speech to be more important than getting people to shut up, just admit it.

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2015 at 7:25pm:

Because you share the same agenda Gandalf.

What agenda is that FD? That I want to shut people up for insulting Islam - by force if necessary? You'll have to explain that one to me.

The only person who thinks people shouldn't say whats on their mind (if they are interested in freedom) is you. You couldn't have been more clear on this - self censorship is vitally important when terrorists are involved. Say it isn't so FD - why do you continually avoid this inconvenient truth?

Quote:

What agenda is that FD?

Getting people to stop drawing pictures of Muhammed. BTW, do you think this is more important than defending freedom of speech?


Quote:

The only person who thinks people shouldn't say whats on their mind (if they are interested in freedom) is you.

I am happy for you to give your opinion and encourage you to stop trying to hide it. Can you explain your sudden desire to redefine self-censorship?

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Getting people to stop drawing pictures of Muhammed.

Rubbish. Expressing my opinion that causing offense for offense's sake is wrong is not "getting" people to do anything. This entire discussion you've been running with the absurd notion that I can't disagree with particular expressions without undermining free speech. Thats what it comes down to. You obviously know its completely ridiculous, so in a desperate attempt to make it sound tenable you pretend I'm actually advocating self-censorship. And you do it (seemingly) without even realising that its actually you who is advocating self-censorship.


freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Can you explain your sudden desire to redefine self-censorship?

I looked up the definition when this discussion started, and I haven't altered from the definition that I found, which is refraining from certain speech *NOT* because you don't believe its the right thing to say, but because you are intimidated/cajoled by external factors.

I am not interested in "getting" people to refrain from saying whats on their mind. If people really want to be dicks then its actually better for them to feel they can be dicks uninhibited, rather than feel they have to self-censor because of pressure from outside - either perceived or real. Thats your domain FD, as you have so ably demonstrated. But of course its far far better for them to not want to be dicks in the first place - and thats what I'm interested in. And not being deterred or intimidated by "context" to say what is wrong is wrong - is vitally important for this. For anyone actually interested in defending free speech - obviously we avoid the FD solution - which is to scream "ooooh we mustn't say that those people who tried to get a rise out of muslims for kicks - are dicks who shouldn't have done what they did..." - whenever terrorists are around.

Quote:

Rubbish. Expressing my opinion that causing offense for offense's sake is wrong is not "getting" people to do anything.

So why do you say it Gandalf?


Quote:

This entire discussion you've been running with the absurd notion that I can't disagree with particular expressions without undermining free speech.

No I haven't. This entire discussion you have been misrepresenting what I say on this. I have corrected you about a dozen times now. Please see my previous response.


Quote:

You obviously know its completely ridiculous, so in a desperate attempt to make it sound tenable you pretend I'm actually advocating self-censorship.

You have previously advocated self censorship quite openly. Only now that you seem to understand the insidious dangers of self censorship, you are attempting to redefine it around yourself.


Quote:

I looked up the definition when this discussion started, and I haven't altered from the definition that I found

Quote it. So far you seem to be saying it is only self censorship when it is motivated by fear of terrorism.


Quote:

which is refraining from certain speech *NOT* because you don't believe its the right thing to say, but because you are intimidated/cajoled by external factors

Is this the definition you found?


Quote:

I am not interested in "getting" people to refrain from saying whats on their mind. If people really want to be dicks then its actually better for them to feel they can be dicks uninhibited, rather than feel they have to self-censor because of pressure from outside - either perceived or real. Thats your domain FD, as you have so ably demonstrated. But of course its far far better for them to not want to be dicks in the first place - and thats what I'm interested in.

You have been saying that certain expressions are wrong and should be avoided. Do you now want to change this to certain thoughts are wrong and should be avoided?

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 7:08pm:

So why do you say it Gandalf?

Oh I don't know FD - a little thing called freedom perhaps? Because I damn well want to say it? When I hear something I think is wrong I have an urge to speak out against it. Strange no? Human nature I guess. And the funny thing is, the more people like you say I should self-sensor in the interests of freeeeedom, the stronger the urge to speak out. Its a little bit like how your stupid faarking profanity filter gives me an overwhelming urge to subvert it as often as I can.

Like I said, I am interested in changing views, especially bigoted ones. Why do you think I'm here? I express my objection to speech I think is wrong, and put my case for why it should be considered wrong. What would be the point if I didn't want to change people's views? Thats what people do FD, they put their views forward and make their case - and its frankly beyond belief that you would somehow interpret this as calling for self-censorship. And almost as stupid as actually calling for self-censorship in the interests of freedom.

Ah. But you shouldn’t say it, G.

That’s not Freeeeedom.

Quote:

Like I said, I am interested in changing views, especially bigoted ones.

But not getting people to change their views, or getting people to change how they express themselves? What is it you object to with this phrasing? Is it sinister to suggest Muslims are trying to get people to stop mocking Muhammed? Is this something to do with your decision to start spinning your agenda as having nothing to do with self censorship? What happened to that 'definition' of self censorship that you were prepared to paraphrase for my benefit. Can you no longer find it?

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2015 at 12:39pm:

Quote: Like I said, I am interested in changing views, especially bigoted ones. But not getting people to change their views, or getting people to change how they express themselves? What is it you object to with this phrasing? Is it sinister to suggest Muslims are trying to get people to stop mocking Muhammed? Is this something to do with your decision to start spinning your agenda as having nothing to do with self censorship? What happened to that 'definition' of self censorship that you were prepared to paraphrase for my benefit. Can you no longer find it?

Quote:

........... Is it sinister to suggest Muslims are trying to get people to stop mocking Muhammed?.......

I have not seen any mocking of moh.
muzzies agree he was a raping thieving traiterous murdering paedophillic warlord.

Not mocking, just stating his actions.

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2015 at 12:39pm:

Quote: Like I said, I am interested in changing views, especially bigoted ones. But not getting people to change their views, or getting people to change how they express themselves? What is it you object to with this phrasing? Is it sinister to suggest Muslims are trying to get people to stop mocking Muhammed? Is this something to do with your decision to start spinning your agenda as having nothing to do with self censorship? What happened to that 'definition' of self censorship that you were prepared to paraphrase for my benefit. Can you no longer find it?

FD is my definition of self-censorship wrong? If so, tell me. Not sure why the only "valid" one is one that I quote from a dictionary.

Self-censorship: refraining from saying something *NOT* because you don't believe its worth saying, but because you feel pressured/cajoled/intimidated to do so by external factors. Is that too "paraphrasy" for you? If you think its wrong, stop the tricky BS and just come out and say what you think it is.

And once you've verified what you consider the correct definition to be, your next task is to explain to me how objecting to offense for offenses's sake is promoting self censorship, but saying that in order to stand up for freedom, we must "refrain" from expressing such objections (when terrorists are lurking) is not promoting self censorship. Can you do that for me FD?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 17^th, 2015 at 1:32pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 17th, 2015 at 12:39pm: Quote: Like I said, I am interested in changing views, especially bigoted ones. But not getting people to change their views, or getting people to change how they express themselves? What is it you object to with this phrasing? Is it sinister to suggest Muslims are trying to get people to stop mocking Muhammed? Is this something to do with your decision to start spinning your agenda as having nothing to do with self censorship? What happened to that 'definition' of self censorship that you were prepared to paraphrase for my benefit. Can you no longer find it? [quote]........... Is it sinister to suggest Muslims are trying to get people to stop mocking Muhammed?.......

I have not seen any mocking of moh.
muzzies agree he was a raping thieving traiterous murdering paedophillic warlord.

Not mocking, just stating his actions. [/quote]

That’s strange, Sprint. Whenever anyone here has said the same about you, you’ve complained vigorously and demanded they be banned.

Freeeedom, innit.

Presumably Sprint would have no problem with being called a bigoted troll then?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 7:27am:

Presumably Sprint would have no problem with being called a bigoted troll then?

Presumably Sprint would have no problem with people lobbying to burn his church down, or castrate or behead him, or even nuke him.

This, you see, is Freeeeedom.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 7:27am:

Presumably Sprint would have no problem with being called a bigoted troll then?

you won't get beheaded for it.

As you would under the cult islam

Quote:

FD is my definition of self-censorship wrong?

The one you paraphrased is vague and waffly. You claimed separately that it only applies when people are motivated by fear of terrorism. You justified this by referring to a definition you found. Please quote it.


Quote:

And once you've verified what you consider the correct definition to be, your next task is to explain to me how objecting to offense for offenses's sake is promoting self censorship, but saying that in order to stand up for freedom, we must "refrain" from expressing such objections (when terrorists are lurking) is not promoting self censorship. Can you do that for me FD?

How people respond to incidents such as the Charlie Hebdo massacre reveals their values. Some might think that freedom of speech is most important, and thus show their solidarity. Others might be unmoved in their view that getting people to stop drawing pictures of Muhammed is more important, and respond as you did. One response supports freedom of speech. The other further undermines it.

Which do you think is more important Gandalf, freedom of speech, or getting people to stop drawing pictures of Muhammed? You haven't said. And please don't respond by pretending you cannot understand the question or complaining that it is not about which is more important. I am making it about which is more important by asking you which is more important.

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 12:28pm:

You claimed separately that it only applies when people are motivated by fear of terrorism.

No I don't believe I did. Can you quote me?

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 12:28pm:

Which do you think is more important Gandalf, freedom of speech, or getting people to stop drawing pictures of Muhammed? You haven't said.

Actually I've said it in just about every post for the last week - which is of course that freedom of speech is the more important - as "getting" people to stop would involve, at the very least, self censorship. I would love to live in a world where everyone thinks its stupid and unnecessary to offend for offence's sake - but we don't, and we have to accept that some people think it good and proper to be dicks towards other people. But that doesn't mean it isn't a freedom loving thing to express the view that such behaviour is stupid and unnecessary. You don't somehow "reveal" yourself as an agent for anti-free speech by expressing your disapproval or even condemnation of offensive speech. Even when terrorists are around - in fact especially when terrorists are around. Your view, which you continue to dance around and run for the hills whenever its mentioned - is that terrorists must dictate our behaviour and compel us to self-censor, thinking, ironically, that it is necessary in order to "stick it to" the terrorists. When in fact, you are just as willing to self-censor in response to terrorists as those who stop speaking out of fear are. True freedom involves saying what you think is right - because you think its right - not because you are terrified about what some external players might think about it, and feel you must self-censor.

Anyone got any idea what gandalfs waffle is ?

Anyone care ?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

we have to accept that some people think it good and proper to be dicks towards other people

Indeed we do...

Freedom's just another word for

NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE.

- Janice Joplin

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 12:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18th, 2015 at 7:27am: Presumably Sprint would have no problem with being called a bigoted troll then? you won't get beheaded for it.

That’s right, Sprint, but you should get banned, burned, castrated, nuked and killed for it.

It really is a jolly world, effendes. I see what you mean by Freeeedom now, FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 1:15pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 18th, 2015 at 12:28pm: You claimed separately that it only applies when people are motivated by fear of terrorism. No I don't believe I did. Can you quote me?

FD said it himself, G. Is it okay if he quotes FD instead?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 3:13pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18th, 2015 at 1:38pm: we have to accept that some people think it good and proper to be dicks towards other people Indeed we do...

True, but we all respect the right to ban  them when they offend Sprint.

Quote:

Actually I've said it in just about every post for the last week - which is of course that freedom of speech is the more important - as "getting" people to stop would involve, at the very least, self censorship.

Which is not what you are doing right? Nice dodge, again. You never could explain that distinction Gandalf.


Quote:

Your view, which you continue to dance around and run for the hills whenever its mentioned - is that terrorists must dictate our behaviour and compel us to self-censor, thinking, ironically, that it is necessary in order to "stick it to" the terrorists.

You constantly insist things like this - eg that my view is based on fear of 'looking lie' the terrorists. I have never said anything like this.


Quote:

When in fact, you are just as willing to self-censor in response to terrorists as those who stop speaking out of fear are. True freedom involves saying what you think is right - because you think its right - not because you are terrified about what some external players might think about it, and feel you must self-censor.

Both may be right, and I have pointed out several times that there is no contradiction between the two, but which one people choose to focus on still reveals which is more important.

Karnal wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 7:10pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 18th, 2015 at 12:18pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18th, 2015 at 7:27am: Presumably Sprint would have no problem with being called a bigoted troll then? you won't get beheaded for it. That’s right, Sprint, but you should get banned, burned, castrated, nuked and killed for it. It really is a jolly world, effendes. I see what you mean by Freeeedom now, FD.

if you ever post anything of merit i might reply to it.

Quote:

IN many respects, Saudi Arabia is one of the most advanced nations in the world. It’s the world’s largest oil producer and its cities are glitz and glamour — thriving metropolis’ in the middle of the desert. In other ways, the desert kingdom is far from advanced, a place where barbaric rituals still occur and where the country’s citizens are subjected to horrific punishments. It’s hard to imagine that in Saudi Arabia this week preparations are being made to not only execute a young man but to crucify him. Literally. The world is pleading with the Saudi government to reconsider. Advocates say what’s about to take place makes them feel physically ill. Al-Nimr was 17 when he went to an anti-government protest in the Saudi Arabian province of Qatif. He was accused by the government of carrying a firearm, attacking security forces and even armed robbery. None of those charges could be proven but he confessed nonetheless. He didn’t have a lawyer and some say the confession was drawn from the teenager via torture. He was demonstrating at the wrong time in the wrong place — in the middle of a violent government crackdown against detractors. That was February, 2012. Fast forward three years and the charges have stuck, despite a recent appeal. His sentence is due to be carried out by beheading and crucifixion, a method that involves removing the head of the prisoner and tying their headless body to a cross. Often, the crucifixion is carried out in a public place. It sends a strong message to others: We will not stand for criticism, no matter who the person and no matter what their age. A Scottish politician raised al-Nimr’s case in parliament this week. She spoke eloquently and she spoke in strong opposition to a practice that has no place in our modern world. “How in 2015 can a supposedly civilised country impose such an inhumane and merciless penalty on any of its citizens, let alone one so young?” MP Margaret Ferrier said. “It’s an absolute outrage and I intend to write to the minister and ask for urgent action to be taken. “Ali’s sentence is due to be barbarically carried out by crucifixion. I feel for this young man and his family. Reading Ali’s story this morning filled me with grief for his life about to be savagely and abruptly ended.” Savagery is nothing new in Saudi Arabia, a country which between 1985 and 2013 executed more than 2000 people. In 2013, 79 people were put to death. Most of them had their heads cut off with large, sharp swords. In January this year, a woman protested her innocence until the final moment when a sword fell across her neck. She was writhing on the hard ground in a very public place trying to escape her executioner. Not once but twice did the sword fall upon her neck, the first blow clearly not getting the job done. Elsewhere, blogger Raif Badawi was jailed for 10 years recently after starting a website for social and political debate in Saudi Arabia. Raif will receive 50 lashings a week for a year for setting up the Saudi Arabian Liberals website. The prosecution first called for him to be tried for apostasy (when a person abandons their religion), which carries a death sentence in Saudi Arabia. Then, in May this year, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, a fine of over $300,000 AUD and 1000 lashes. When he is finally released, Raif faces a 10-year travel ban which would keep him from his wife and three young children in Canada, according to Amnesty International. A spokesman for Amnesty International told news.com.au the last time men were strapped to crosses and killed was in 2013. “Five Yemeni men were beheaded and crucified, with pictures emerging on social media showing five decapitated bodies hanging from a horizontal pole with their heads wrapped in bags. “The beheading and ‘crucifixion’ took place in front of the University of Jizan where students were taking exams.” The Saudi city of Riyadh. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr is not the only family member under the careful watch of the Saudi government. Ali’s uncle Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was arrested in July, 2012. A self-described campaigner for human rights for minorities, the 53-year-old has a strong following online where a website and Facebook page have been set up to rally support for his defence. His crimes, including speaking out against the government, carry the death penalty. Maya Foa, director of the death penalty team at legal charity Reprieve, told the International Business Times nobody should have to go through what Ali is going through. “Ali was a vulnerable child when he was arrested and this ordeal began. His execution — based apparently on the authorities’ dislike for his uncle, and his involvement in anti-government protests — would violate international law and the most basic standards of decency. It must be stopped.”

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/world/prisoner-ali-mohammed-al-nimr-facing-death-by-crucifixion-in-saudi-arabia/story-fnihsmjt-1227533534610

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 10:01am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 18th, 2015 at 7:10pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 18th, 2015 at 12:18pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18th, 2015 at 7:27am: Presumably Sprint would have no problem with being called a bigoted troll then? you won't get beheaded for it. That’s right, Sprint, but you should get banned, burned, castrated, nuked and killed for it. It really is a jolly world, effendes. I see what you mean by Freeeedom now, FD. if you ever post anything of merit i might reply to it.

That’s right, Sprint. You’ll call to ban it.

FD have you found where I "separately" said self-censorship only applies to pressure from terrorists?


freediver wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:54am:

Which is not what you are doing right? Nice dodge, again. You never could explain that distinction Gandalf.

I literally couldn't have explained it more thoroughly. Self censorship is feeling pressured to stop saying something by external influences - contrary to what you actually believe (by the way, any further objections to my definition? you didn't say). I am not interested in doing that - you are. Instead I want people to change what they actually believe - on their own volition, not express themselves (or not express themselves) contrary to what they actually believe. So I'm not interested in "getting" people who say bigoted things to engage in this sort of self-censorship, but its important to stress that this doesn't deter me in any way shape or form from saying what I believe to be true - ie that what they are saying is bigoted and unnecessary. Not doing so - when its done so in the context of "taking a side" when terrorists are lurking is nothing less that self-censorship.

So clarify again for me FD - do you think its undermining free speech to say that Charlie Hebdo cartoons are bigoted and unnecessary? If you do, then all I can say is you have some serious problems with the understanding of freedom of speech.

Quote:

FD have you found where I "separately" said self-censorship only applies to pressure from terrorists?

Let me know when you get up to the number of time I have asked you to quote that definition you found. The only reason you need to ask me to quote you is that I have been asking you for so long you have forgotten what I am referring to.


Quote:

I literally couldn't have explained it more thoroughly. Self censorship is feeling pressured to stop saying something by external influences - contrary to what you actually believe (by the way, any further objections to my definition? you didn't say). I am not interested in doing that - you are.

In the past you have quite openly labelled what you are doing as calling for self censoirship. What has changed? As far as I can tell only the spin has changed.


Quote:

but its important to stress that this doesn't deter me in any way shape or form from saying what I believe to be true - ie that what they are saying is bigoted and unnecessary

And they should stop doing it, right? Or are you going to drop that also? I have never seen anyone pedal backwards into the standard bearer position Gandalf. You are not there yet.


Quote:

Instead I want people to change what they actually believe - on their own volition, not express themselves (or not express themselves) contrary to what they actually believe. So I'm not interested in "getting" people who say bigoted things to engage in this sort of self-censorship

How is this different to following the Charlie Hebdo massacre by mocking the solidarity movement, calling for people to show more respect and saying we should address the 'genuine grievances' of the terrorists, which as far as I can tell is a reference to people drawing pictures of Muhammed? Can we only address the genuine grievances of Muslims after converting to Islam?

Do you think people might feel pressured into bowing to the demands from the good Muslims to show more respect by not giving bad Muslims genuine reasons to slaughter more innocent people?

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 7:30am:

Let me know when you get up to the number of time I have asked you to quote that definition you found. The only reason you need to ask me to quote you is that I have been asking you for so long you have forgotten what I am referring to.

Is this going to help you find where I said separately that self-censorship only applies to terrorism? Brilliant logic there FD. The definition by the way was the first one that came up on google. See if you can find it. Presumably then you will be able to prove that I said something that I didn't. Good luck with that.

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 7:30am:

How is this different to following the Charlie Hebdo massacre by mocking the solidarity movement, calling for people to show more respect and saying [highlight]we should address the 'genuine grievances' of the terrorists, which as far as I can tell is a reference to people drawing pictures of Muhammed? Can we only address the genuine grievances of Muslims after converting to Islam?

Gawd that strawman's getting really tiring FD, especially after I have corrected you so many times.

You are so clueless about the relevant points here - honestly why do you bother? I can't believe you simply like being a troll.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 7:57am:

freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2015 at 7:30am: How is this different to following the Charlie Hebdo massacre by mocking the solidarity movement, calling for people to show more respect and saying [highlight]we should address the 'genuine grievances' of the terrorists, which as far as I can tell is a reference to people drawing pictures of Muhammed? Can we only address the genuine grievances of Muslims after converting to Islam? Gawd that strawman's getting really tiring FD, especially after I have corrected you so many times. You are so clueless about the relevant points here - honestly why do you bother? I can't believe you simply like being a troll.

These are your exact words Gandalf. I quoted them in the opening post and you have spent the entire thread backpedaling and pretending you said something completely different. I can quote you making even more direct calls for self censorship if you would like.


Quote:

Am I an apologist for terrorists, and therefore a de-facto enemy of freedom if I don't militantly declare my 'solidarity' with victims of terrorists who felt offended - and instead call on people to act more respectfully and that such attacks reflect genuine grievances felt by a segment of society that should be addressed?

So when did you decide to start putting a different spin on this agenda that you just happen to share in common with the offended, genuinely aggrieved terrorists? BTW, are these the same terrorists you later insisted were the only Muslims who were not actually offended?

When did it occur to you that self censorship is a bad thing? Was it only after you decided to spin yourself into a standard bearer for western liberal morals and 'true' freedom of speech?

Or am I just missing the 'relevant points', which I presume is a reference to your latest efforts to spin the same old agenda?

He’s a standard bearer for wishy washy Western morals, FD. He wants to take away the Freeeeedom of decent white people everywhere to self censor.

That’s just the sort of fellow your Muselman is.

Cunning, No?

Good job FD - congratulations on quoting me *NOT* saying that we should deal with the terrorists grievances.

I have spelled out in at least two separate posts how I am *NOT* talking about the terrorists grievances, pointing out that they are just an opportunists who try and exploit the tensions created. I couldn't have been more clear on whose grievances I meant. I know you didn't miss them because you directly addressed them each time. What motivates you to go and so willfully misrepresent what I wrote is beyond me.

Now now, G, is that you putting words in FD’s mouth again.

Naughty  naughty.

Quote:

Good job FD - congratulations on quoting me *NOT* saying that we should deal with the terrorists grievances.

Are they not offended? Is this not the grievance you said we should address? Or should we exclude Muslims we know to be future terrorists from your grievance addressing process?

In any case, what is the difference between addressing these grievances and getting people to stop drawing pictures of Muhammed? Just pretend I have correctly identified the precise non-terroristy group of Muslims you have in mind if it helps you comprehend the question.


Quote:

I have spelled out in at least two separate posts how I am *NOT* talking about the terrorists grievances

I recall you saying that the terrorists were probably the only Muslims who were not actually offended by the cartoons, which is a bit hard to make sense of given you said the exact opposite in the passage I quoted. It is almost as confusing as you promoting self censorship then later insisting you do not do this.


Quote:

I couldn't have been more clear on whose grievances I meant.

Actually you were a bit vague. Can you point out all your terrorist mates for me so I can tell which Muslims I should ignore the grievances of by failing to appropriately 'address' them?

This is FD trolling.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 4:29pm:

This is FD trolling.

Not at all. It’s FD getting to the bottom of things, once and for all.

He can keep this subject going for another year if you want. Daily posts about what you think of self censorship and being a standard bearer of modern liberal morals/values.

It you don’t think you can keep it up, no problem. Just confess

I’ve forgotten what FD wants you to confess to, but I’m sure he can think of something.

Karnal wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 6:40pm:

He can keep this subject going for another year if you want.

Don't I know it. Perhaps thats why I have this overwhelming urge to bail out.

Its not possible that FD can't understand what I'm saying - I'm merely repeating the same arguments he made pre 2007.

You're right - getting me to confess to... err.. who knows what... is far more important than actually understanding the topic.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 4:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 21st, 2015 at 6:40pm: He can keep this subject going for another year if you want. Don't I know it. Perhaps thats why I have this overwhelming urge to bail out. Its not possible that FD can't understand what I'm saying - I'm merely repeating the same arguments he made pre 2007.

Yes, but FD’s forgotten what he thought back then. It was a long time ago, after all. He’s finding it really hard to understand what you’re saying.

If you don’t keep answering his questions, he might accidentally mix up your words when he’s starting threads on them and putting them in the Wiki.

No, G, there’s no other option. You must confess.

You’re Abu, yes?

Gandalf when you say that freedom of speech is more important than getting people to stop drawing pictures of Muhammed, is that because you deny trying to get people to stop drawing pictures of Muhammed?

Have you changed your views on this issue?

wonderful to see you back FD.

I missed you too Gandalf.

What inspired you to change what you say about self censorship?

I didn't.

But please feel free to once again twist yourself into knots trying to prove I said something I didn't. Perhaps you can quote yourself again accusing me of saying something - and somehow think its a great piece of proof.

So you have always spoken against self censorship?

freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:

So you have always spoken against self censorship?

How do you speak against self censorship?

Why would you speak about self censorship?

Obviously I did not mean incessantly, but I'm pretty sure Gandalf has spoken in support of self censorship before. He said the same things he is saying now. He was just prepared to call it what it is.

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 2:24pm:

Obviously I did not mean incessantly, but I'm pretty sure Gandalf has spoken in support of self censorship before. He said the same things he is saying now. He was just prepared to call it what it is.

What does that even mean? Being nice to people? Not threatening to kill them?

gandalf is just another islamic enabler nothing more. He may think and call himself a muslim but at the end of the day he is just an enabler. The tales he believes flies in the face of what the Quran actually says.

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 6:26pm:

gandalf is just another islamic enabler nothing more. He may think and call himself a muslim but at the end of the day he is just an enabler. The tales he believes flies in the face of what the Quran actually says.

Even though you haven't even read it.

Cunning, no?

Karnal wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 6:42pm:

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 6:26pm: gandalf is just another islamic enabler nothing more. He may think and call himself a muslim but at the end of the day he is just an enabler. The tales he believes flies in the face of what the Quran actually says. Even though you haven't even read it. Cunning, no?

But I have read it moron.

Are all you Palestinians this thick ?

Karnal wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 5:58pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 2:24pm: Obviously I did not mean incessantly, but I'm pretty sure Gandalf has spoken in support of self censorship before. He said the same things he is saying now. He was just prepared to call it what it is. What does that even mean? Being nice to people? Not threatening to kill them?

Are you asking me what self censorship means?

True freedom is heating your sausage rolls in the workplace microwave oven that's used by your Muslim fellow-workers.


Here's another university academic working hard to Islamise the UK.

link

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 5:58pm: freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 2:24pm: Obviously I did not mean incessantly, but I'm pretty sure Gandalf has spoken in support of self censorship before. He said the same things he is saying now. He was just prepared to call it what it is. What does that even mean? Being nice to people? Not threatening to kill them? Are you asking me what self censorship means?

Are you asking me whether I’m asking you what self censorship means?

Let’s talk about that.

It's still legal to heat up your toasted bacon sandwich in the same microwave oven as your Muslim workmates.

That's freedom for you.

Enjoy it while you can.

Sure as God made little green apples the authorities will eventually come around to banning it as a 'Hate Crime' or 'Blasphemy' or 'Causing a Public Nuisance' or some such thing.

Karnal wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 6:58pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 5:58pm: freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 2:24pm: Obviously I did not mean incessantly, but I'm pretty sure Gandalf has spoken in support of self censorship before. He said the same things he is saying now. He was just prepared to call it what it is. What does that even mean? Being nice to people? Not threatening to kill them? Are you asking me what self censorship means? Are you asking me whether I’m asking you what self censorship means? Let’s talk about that.

Yes.

Gandalf was backpedaling towards a reasonable definition a few pages back. Perhaps he didn't know what it meant previously.

Self censorship is otherwise known.as civilisation’s thin veneer, FD. It’s one of those all-too-human challenges.

It also saves one from asking dumb questions that one already knows the answer to. Civilisation has its discontents, you see.

... and then we have stark evidence of FREEDOM being curtailed in our school canteens where our own school administrators and principles have introduced Islamisation by banning any pork products so as not to offend certain religious sensitivities.

FREEDOM has repeatedly been denied the public in the cause of Islamisation at Christian festival times when the likes of Clover Moore, the Sydney mayor, refused to have the usual Norwegian pine raised in celebration in Martin Place lest this offend certain religious sensitivities.

And again FREEDOM was denied the Sydney public when some of our large stores decided to no longer dress their windows with nativity scenes lest this militate against the program for Islamising our society with respect to accommodating our Muslim Community.

Even our police force had its FREEDOM to act in a uniform manner towards the public, regardless of race, colour or creed - withdrawn. 'Sensitivity Training' with regard to Muslim suspects became a major part of the training course at the NSW Police Academy in Goulburn. If a male policeman should touch a female Muslim during an arrest - this has now become sufficient grounds for the case to be thrown out of court. A female officer must perform this task now.

In such ways has Islamisation been nibbling away at the FREEDOMS we once knew before our politicians decided that Australia was far too relaxed and comfortable with itself due to our social harmony and similar cultural backgrounds.

Hang on! Am I in the wrong thread? I've just noticed that ... oh nevermind...  8-)

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 6:34am:

... and then we have stark evidence of FREEDOM being curtailed in our school canteens where our own school administrators and principles have introduced Islamisation by banning any pork products so as not to offend certain religious sensitivities. FREEDOM has repeatedly been denied the public in the cause of Islamisation at Christian festival times when the likes of Clover Moore, the Sydney mayor, refused to have the usual Norwegian pine raised in celebration in Martin Place lest this offend certain religious sensitivities. And again FREEDOM was denied the Sydney public when some of our large stores decided to no longer dress their windows with nativity scenes lest this militate against the program for Islamising our society with respect to accommodating our Muslim Community. Even our police force had its FREEDOM to act in a uniform manner towards the public, regardless of race, colour or creed - withdrawn. 'Sensitivity Training' with regard to Muslim suspects became a major part of the training course at the NSW Police Academy in Goulburn. If a male policeman should touch a female Muslim during an arrest - this has now become sufficient grounds for the case to be thrown out of court. A female officer must perform this task now. In such ways has Islamisation been nibbling away at the FREEDOMS we once knew before our politicians decided that Australia was far too relaxed and comfortable with itself due to our social harmony and similar cultural backgrounds.

That's right, Herbie. Your FREEEEDOM to allow some kids to get a bit of pork has been revoked by a school board. Your FREEEEDOM to look at nativity scenes and a Norwegian pine tree (in the Australian Summer) has been seriously curtailed by Clover Moore and David Jones. Your FREEEEEEDOM to have police treat the tinted races like Aussie criminals has been ripped away from your sphere of influence.

I blame Islam.

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 11:53pm:

Self censorship is otherwise known.as civilisation’s thin veneer, FD. It’s one of those all-too-human challenges. It also saves one from asking dumb questions that one already knows the answer to. Civilisation has its discontents, you see.

FD wants us to ignore the fact that he believes self-censorship is an appropriate way to stand up for freedom.

I think thats why he keeps trotting out this "gandalf backpeddled" nonsense.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 7:13pm:

True freedom is heating your sausage rolls in the workplace microwave oven that's used by your Muslim fellow-workers. Here's another university academic working hard to Islamise the UK. link

Don't microwave sausage rolls - it'll upset other faiths! New guidelines on communal kitchen etiquette for the workplace are suggested

    New guidelines on etiquette for communal kitchens at work suggested
    Professor Adam Dinham warns employers to consider other religions
    Advice includes not warming up a sausage roll in the microwave
    Also suggests not leaving bacon sandwiches in communal fridge


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Not a chance in HELL would I pander to that ridiculous garbage by the usual simpletons. Having said that I am gonna make sure I heat up bacon rolls in the microwave now.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 10:31am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2015 at 11:53pm: Self censorship is otherwise known.as civilisation’s thin veneer, FD. It’s one of those all-too-human challenges. It also saves one from asking dumb questions that one already knows the answer to. Civilisation has its discontents, you see. FD wants us to ignore the fact that he believes self-censorship is an appropriate way to stand up for freedom.

How's that? To be honest, I can't even understand what FD means by self-censorship. I think he's saying your view of certain Islamic rules (such as killing gays who do it Mardi Gras style, both the giver and the taker) is somehow self-censorship. He's gone from saying you believe in killing gays who do it Mardi Gras-style to saying you're practicing self-censorship. He must have changed his mind on this one.

For FD, self-censorship must mean either outright taqiyya (i.e, you believe in killing gays who do it Mardi Gras style, both the giver and the taker, but like to pretend you don't); or you're censoring your belief in Islam (which by FD's definition includes killing gays who do it Mardi Gras style, both the giver and the etc, etc, etc).

Now we know you could not possibly be practicing taqiyya as we are not currently at war with an occupying power who you have the legitimate right to tell porkies to according to your sinister prophet (pbuh). Telling porkies about the laws of Islam would be considered blasphemy by many advocates, and we all know what the penalty for that is.

Self-censoring your views on Islam is also haram. This, of course, is according to the 2015 FD, who argues vehemently against the 2008 FD, who believed Islamic law and culture is flexible. The fact that you agree with the 2008 FD falls on deaf ears for the 2015 FD. The belief that religion is a personal experience and must be applied to one's own conscience (there should be no compulsion in religion) is an anathema to the 2015 FD, despite what it says in the Koran. 2015 FD doesn't understand it, which is why he asks you so many questions about it. 2015 FD just wants to know more.

Taqiyya or self-censorship? Self-censorship or taqiyya?

Sometimes a question is just a question.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 12:41pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 7:13pm: True freedom is heating your sausage rolls in the workplace microwave oven that's used by your Muslim fellow-workers. Here's another university academic working hard to Islamise the UK. link Don't microwave sausage rolls - it'll upset other faiths! New guidelines on communal kitchen etiquette for the workplace are suggested     New guidelines on etiquette for communal kitchens at work suggested     Professor Adam Dinham warns employers to consider other religions     Advice includes not warming up a sausage roll in the microwave     Also suggests not leaving bacon sandwiches in communal fridge ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Not a chance in HELL would I pander to that ridiculous garbage by the usual simpletons. Having said that I am gonna make sure I heat up bacon rolls in the microwave now.

You'll have to get a job first, Matty. Using your Mum's microwave doesn't count.

Karnal wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 9:58am:

I blame Islam.

Oh hell no.

I blame the people who are elected by the majority of Australians to defend and preserve our cultural heritage and our Western way of life.

Karnal wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 1:21pm:

How's that? To be honest, I can't even understand what FD means by self-censorship.

I gave him a very simple definition, then he spent the next 5 pages demanding I provide the direct quote. Then he started rabbitting on about me backpeddling and such gibberish.

Anyway, to me self censorship is wanting to say something but refraining from saying it because of perceived external threats or intimidation. I am against that. Instead I want people to stop saying stupid things because they realise on their own they are stupid - not because they feel pressured to not say it by external intimidation. BUT - and this is the critical point - just because I stand up for people's right to express themselves - offensively if they insist on it - that does not and cannot stop me from expressing my view that people who are dickheads are dickheads and that they shouldn't be dickheads.

I hope the distinction is not too subtle for you as it was for FD.

So then we get on to FD supporting self censorship. He picks up on this view of mine and erroneously calls it "self censorship", then says it is important that someone who supports freedom should not engage in this sort of behaviour. For example - when cartoonists who are gunned down for expressing themselves in a (deliberately) offensive way, freedom lovers should avoid expressing a view that the cartoons were wrong and shouldn't have been done. Or in other words, a person who supports freedom but also disagrees with people drawing offensive cartoons - just to be offensive - shouldn't express this view. They should self censor.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 1:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 1:21pm: How's that? To be honest, I can't even understand what FD means by self-censorship. I gave him a very simple definition, then he spent the next 5 pages demanding I provide the direct quote. Then he started rabbitting on about me backpeddling and such gibberish. Anyway, to me self censorship is wanting to say something but refraining from saying it because of perceived external threats or intimidation. I am against that. Instead I want people to stop saying stupid things because they realise on their own they are stupid - not because they feel pressured to not say it by external intimidation. BUT - and this is the critical point - just because I stand up for people's right to express themselves - offensively if they insist on it - that does not and cannot stop me from expressing my view that people who are dickheads are dickheads and that they shouldn't be dickheads. I hope the distinction is not too subtle for you as it was for FD. So then we get on to FD supporting self censorship. He picks up on this view of mine and erroneously calls it "self censorship", then says it is important that someone who supports freedom should not engage in this sort of behaviour. For example - when cartoonists who are gunned down for expressing themselves in a (deliberately) offensive way, freedom lovers should avoid expressing a view that the cartoons were wrong and shouldn't have been done. Or in other words, a person who supports freedom but also disagrees with people drawing offensive cartoons - just to be offensive - shouldn't express this view. They should self censor.

Ah. So FD believes in self-censorship. Got it.

What about taqiyya?

FD recently said he "seriously considered" donning a burqa in solidarity with burqa wearers. I don't think he actually did it, but its the thought that counts no?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 3:05pm:

FD recently said he "seriously considered" donning a burqa in solidarity with burqa wearers. I don't think he actually did it, but its the thought that counts no?

Oh, yes. I do remember that one. FD wanted to unite with the letterbox-wearers - that's how much he likes Freeeeedom.

Is this self-censorship or taqiyya? I'm not sure.

I'm thinking more taqqiya. Not long ago he said he believed women here who wear the hijab overwhelmingly do it because they are hostile to our values. He raves on most days about how evil Islam is and the greatest threat to our way of life, constantly tarrs all muslims with the same brush, and is deafening in his silence over regular calls on his board to attack muslim's freedoms. So yeah, such a stunt does seem rather cynical to me.

I do wonder how that would have worked though - would he rock up to work in one, or just do a token standing by a busy road wearing one.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 3:32pm:

I'm thinking more taqqiya. Not long ago he said he believed women here who wear the hijab overwhelmingly do it because they are hostile to our values. He raves on most days about how evil Islam is and the greatest threat to our way of life, constantly tarrs all muslims with the same brush, and is deafening in his silence over regular calls on his board to attack muslim's freedoms. So yeah, such a stunt does seem rather cynical to me. I do wonder how that would have worked though - would he rock up to work in one, or just do a token standing by a busy road wearing one.

No, he'd have to wear it permanently. You have to don them.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 10:31am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 8th, 2015 at 11:53pm: Self censorship is otherwise known.as civilisation’s thin veneer, FD. It’s one of those all-too-human challenges. It also saves one from asking dumb questions that one already knows the answer to. Civilisation has its discontents, you see. FD wants us to ignore the fact that he believes self-censorship is an appropriate way to stand up for freedom. I think thats why he keeps trotting out this "gandalf backpeddled" nonsense.

I say you backpedaled because (among other things) you previously called for self censorship quite openly, now you claim you never did and try to spin it the opposite way.


Quote:

I gave him a very simple definition, then he spent the next 5 pages demanding I provide the direct quote.

No Gandalf. It was well before then. You claimed that you found a definition then provided an obviously mangeled version of it, so I asked (in vain of course) for you to provide this definition you found, and I kept asking while you completely rewrote your spin on it.


Quote:

So then we get on to FD supporting self censorship. He picks up on this view of mine and erroneously calls it "self censorship"

What about when you called it self censorship? Was that also erroneous?

Gandalf this is what you ran away from earlier in the thread:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:26am:

I didn't. But please feel free to once again twist yourself into knots trying to prove I said something I didn't. Perhaps you can quote yourself again accusing me of saying something - and somehow think its a great piece of proof.

freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:

So you have always spoken against self censorship?

FD, could you tell us what self-censorship is without any references to something G didn’t say?

I’m curious. I’d like to know what you mean.

from wikipedia:

Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own blog, book, film, or other forms of media. This is done out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences (actual or perceived) of others and without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority.

Thanks for the reply, FD. How can someone stand for that?

Is it a value? A skill? What is it?

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 9:34pm:

from wikipedia: Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own blog, book, film, or other forms of media. This is done out of fear                  of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences (actual or perceived) of others and without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority.

Moral cowardice.

Moral cowardice is ubiquitous in this age, imo.

It is particularly apparent, in both the political and [traditional] religious spheres of influence among men, imo.




Dictionary;
ubiquitous = = present, appearing, or found everywhere.


QUESTION;
And why is that so ?


ANSWER;
I would suppose, proffer, that it is so, because many people do not realise [or choose to ignore] just how important truth is, to their very life.

I would proffer, that it is so, because many people are 'blind' to the things which are truly important in life.

It is sad.




But, the moral cowards can bear that load, that burden [i.e. the consequence of their choice], themselves.

After all, it is the choice which THEY, themselves have made.






.



Isaiah 48:10
Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

Daniel 12:10
Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.


Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.




.





Their own hearts will condemn them/us.


Psalms 58:1
Do ye indeed speak righteousness,.... do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?
2  Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.
3  The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.


Jeremiah 9:3
And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.
...
...
6  Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD.


John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20  For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21  But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.



.



Traditional religious leaders, they are those 'greedy dogs'...

John 12:42
....among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43  For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.


Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
14  And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

Thank you for that very welcome and timely intermission, Yadda.  :)

I was about to self-censor any further reading of this exhausting and exhaustive micro-dissecting thread on Freedom when suddenly your macro-contribution sprung into view to provide me with just the right palliative relief that my sorely abused patience was screaming for.  :)

Karnal wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 10:21pm:

Thanks for the reply, FD. How can someone stand for that? Is it a value? A skill? What is it?

Self censorship is an insidious threat to freedom of speech, I suppose because it is largely hidden. It is particularly dangerous in response to the use of fear (terrorism), however Muslims seem skilled at exploiting both fear and the whole victimhood/demanding respect thing.

I suspect Gandalf has only just realised this, hence his backflip on the issue.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 8:56am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:21pm: Thanks for the reply, FD. How can someone stand for that? Is it a value? A skill? What is it? Self censorship is an insidious threat to freedom of speech, I suppose because it is largely hidden. It is particularly dangerous in response to the use of fear (terrorism), however Muslims seem skilled at exploiting both fear and the whole victimhood/demanding respect thing. I suspect Gandalf has only just realised this, hence his backflip on the issue.

So you think G agrees with you?

How has he been a proponent of self-censorship?

What do you think about censoring mean thoughts to be nice to people?

What do you think about laws in Singapore and Malaysia that criminalize racial and religious vilification?

What do you think of vilification laws at all?

What do  you think of state censorship?

Is the Australian Censorship Board an insidious threat to freedom of speech?

They once banned the Satanic Verses. Insidious?

And, last but not, least, should Muslims censor themselves to not talk about Islam, or just the parts with that Jew and his gold, Aisha, the 600 Jews killed in a day, and the threat to our Freeeeedom?

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 6:06am:

Thank you for that very welcome and timely intermission, Yadda.  :) I was about to self-censor any further reading of this exhausting and exhaustive micro-dissecting thread on Freedom when suddenly your macro-contribution sprung into view to provide me with just the right palliative relief that my sorely abused patience was screaming for.  :)

You’ve always been.abused, Herbie. People can be really mean. Do you know what you are?

You’re an.abuse victim.

You’re very brave, and don’t you ever forget it.

Quote:

So you think G agrees with you?

Obviously not entirely, but he is going to significant effort to distance himself from it.


Quote:

How has he been a proponent of self-censorship?

By promoting self censorship.


Quote:

What do you think about censoring mean thoughts to be nice to people?

It makes me all warm and fuzzy.


Quote:

What do you think about laws in Singapore and Malaysia that criminalize racial and religious vilification?

I don't know enough about them to comment.


Quote:

They once banned the Satanic Verses. Insidious?

Yes.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 8:56am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:21pm: Thanks for the reply, FD. How can someone stand for that? Is it a value? A skill? What is it? Self censorship is an insidious threat to freedom of speech, I suppose because it is largely hidden. It is particularly dangerous in response to the use of fear (terrorism), however Muslims seem skilled at exploiting both fear and the whole victimhood/demanding respect thing. I suspect Gandalf has only just realised this, hence his backflip on the issue.

But when cartoonists are gunned down for being offensive - one should, in the interests of freedom, refrain from expressing the view that the cartoons were offensive and shouldn't have been published right?

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

Quote: So you think G agrees with you? Obviously not entirely, but he is going to significant effort to distance himself from it. [quote]How has he been a proponent of self-censorship?

By promoting self censorship.


Quote:

What do you think about censoring mean thoughts to be nice to people?

It makes me all warm and fuzzy.


Quote:

What do you think about laws in Singapore and Malaysia that criminalize racial and religious vilification?

I don't know enough about them to comment.


Quote:

They once banned the Satanic Verses. Insidious?

Yes.[/quote]

Thanks, FD. You agree then that it's not very nice to tell people when you're angry at them, yes? Not all the time, anyway. You agree with the odd white-lie to keep people's spirits up and save the hassle of telling them what you really think, no? Feel free to expand on this point.

The vilification laws in Singapore and Malaysia are designed to hold together a society comprised of three main ethnic groups: Chinese, Malays and Indians. The Malays whittled some of these laws down under Mahatir, but racial vilification and the publishing of this is a serious crime, particularly in Singapore. Mind you, Lee Kwan Yew got away with it constantly, but that's just him. Unless you're the boss, the freedom to offend an ethnic or religious group is not taken as a human right in Singapore, and for good reason: power and ethnicity there is a delicate balance. Their history is filled with riots and uprisings, but perhaps more importantly for Singapore, strikes. Labour in Singapore is based on ethnicity. You don't want Tamil labourers, for example, walking off a construction site.

Racial vilification laws in Singapore are about keeping the machine running and making the trains run on time.

Civilisation has its discontents, no?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 4:19pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2015 at 8:56am: Karnal wrote on Oct 9th, 2015 at 10:21pm: Thanks for the reply, FD. How can someone stand for that? Is it a value? A skill? What is it? Self censorship is an insidious threat to freedom of speech, I suppose because it is largely hidden. It is particularly dangerous in response to the use of fear (terrorism), however Muslims seem skilled at exploiting both fear and the whole victimhood/demanding respect thing. I suspect Gandalf has only just realised this, hence his backflip on the issue. But when cartoonists are gunned down for being offensive - one should, in the interests of freedom, refrain from expressing the view that the cartoons were offensive and shouldn't have been published right?

Which cartoons? Those Danish ones were pretty nasty, but the Charlie Hebdo ones were tame. A hundred lashes for not buying this magazine?

How's that offensive?

saying they were "tame" is neither here nor there.

And it certainly doesn't detract from the point that expressing the view that the cartoons were offensive and should not have been published - is not in any way undermining free speech. And moreover, thinking that refraining from saying it because of concerns of what the terrorist might make of it, is an appropriate way of standing up for free speech - is the height of irony and nothing less than a call for self-censorship.

Quote:

Racial vilification laws in Singapore are about keeping the machine running and making the trains run on time. Civilisation has its discontents, no?

It's important to have priorities.


Quote:

And it certainly doesn't detract from the point that expressing the view that the cartoons were offensive and should not have been published - is not in any way undermining free speech. And moreover, thinking that refraining from saying it because of concerns of what the terrorist might make of it, is an appropriate way of standing up for free speech - is the height of irony and nothing less than a call for self-censorship.

Gandalf you still haven't explained the dramatic change in the way you present your arguments about self censorship. Have you forgotten that you previously spoke in favour of self censorship quite openly?

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

Quote: Racial vilification laws in Singapore are about keeping the machine running and making the trains run on time. Civilisation has its discontents, no? It's important to have priorities.

About what?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

saying they were "tame" is neither here nor there. And it certainly doesn't detract from the point that expressing the view that the cartoons were offensive and should not have been published - is not in any way undermining free speech. And moreover, thinking that refraining from saying it because of concerns of what the terrorist might make of it, is an appropriate way of standing up for free speech - is the height of irony and nothing less than a call for self-censorship.

Why shouldn't a cartoon of Muhammed saying "a hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine" be published? I'm still trying to work out how it can be seen as offensive. What do you think?

I'm curious.

It alienates Muslims. Which radicalises them. Which of course turns them into terrorists, which is offensive.

What has changed is that instead of Gandalf arguing they should not publish these cartoons because self censorship is a good thing, he is arguing they should not publish them because they are Muslims.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 6:59pm:

It alienates Muslims. Which radicalises them. Which of course turns them into terrorists, which is offensive. What has changed is that instead of Gandalf arguing they should not publish these cartoons because self censorship is a good thing, he is arguing they should not publish them because they are Muslims.

No answering G's questions, FD. You've got your own to answer.

Chop chop. They're mounting up, you know.

Karnal wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 6:46pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10th, 2015 at 6:11pm: saying they were "tame" is neither here nor there. And it certainly doesn't detract from the point that expressing the view that the cartoons were offensive and should not have been published - is not in any way undermining free speech. And moreover, thinking that refraining from saying it because of concerns of what the terrorist might make of it, is an appropriate way of standing up for free speech - is the height of irony and nothing less than a call for self-censorship. Why shouldn't a cartoon of Muhammed saying "a hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine" be published? I'm still trying to work out how it can be seen as offensive. What do you think? I'm curious.

It was the racial caricatures I was more worried about.

Regardless, its irrelevant to the point. It could be Mother Theresa expressing goodwill to humanity, it doesn't matter - if someone finds it offensive and inappropriate, they should be free to say so, and not be deterred from saying it by external pressures.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 6:59pm:

What has changed is that instead of Gandalf arguing they should not publish these cartoons because self censorship is a good thing, he is arguing they should not publish them because they are Muslims.

Ah

Do you disagree Gandalf?


Quote:

It was the racial caricatures I was more worried about.

Should we try to draw pictures of Muhammed lacking in any racial characteristics?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 10:06am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 10th, 2015 at 6:46pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10th, 2015 at 6:11pm: saying they were "tame" is neither here nor there. And it certainly doesn't detract from the point that expressing the view that the cartoons were offensive and should not have been published - is not in any way undermining free speech. And moreover, thinking that refraining from saying it because of concerns of what the terrorist might make of it, is an appropriate way of standing up for free speech - is the height of irony and nothing less than a call for self-censorship. Why shouldn't a cartoon of Muhammed saying "a hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine" be published? I'm still trying to work out how it can be seen as offensive. What do you think? I'm curious. It was the racial caricatures I was more worried about. Regardless, its irrelevant to the point. It could be Mother Theresa expressing goodwill to humanity, it doesn't matter - if someone finds it offensive and inappropriate, they should be free to say so, and not be deterred from saying it by external pressures.

Er yes, G. If you’re telling me my words or art have offended you in some way, you do have to say why you’ve been offended.

"Inappropriate" is just the modern word for verboten. If you want me to refrain from my work, you need to say why.

I’m a bit surprised you think all that needs to be said is "inappropriate" and "cultural sensitivities" and that’s it. Cartoonists, publishers, people should rub out what others don’t like and think up something unoffensive to fill up the blank space - without even being told what it is that offends.

After the attack, the original Charlie Hebdo front page was going to be a blank page. But remember, that was seen as even more provocative.

Karnal wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

I’m a bit surprised you think all that needs to be said is inappropriate and cultural sensitivities and that’s it. Cartoonists, publishers, people should rub it all out and think up something unoffensive, without even being told what it is that offends.

You seem to misunderstand. To be honest I'm not really sure what you are saying. My point is pretty simple in fact - cartoonists should be free to be dicks, and opponents should be free to object and say it was a stupid thing to do without being an underminer of free speech. Whether or not they give a good reason for their objection is neither here nor there.

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

Should we try to draw pictures of Muhammed lacking in any racial characteristics?

As Ben Kenobi said, you must do what you feel is right - of course.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:23am: I’m a bit surprised you think all that needs to be said is inappropriate and cultural sensitivities and that’s it. Cartoonists, publishers, people should rub it all out and think up something unoffensive, without even being told what it is that offends. You seem to misunderstand. To be honest I'm not really sure what you are saying. My point is pretty simple in fact - cartoonists should be free to be dicks, and opponents should be free to object and say it was a stupid thing to do without being an underminer of free speech. Whether or not they give a good reason for their objection is neither here nor there.

Gandalf what made you change your mind on the whole self censorship thing?

Have you changed your mind? It's a bit hard to tell when you only permit yourself to repeat the same simple message over and over.

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 11:44am:

Gandalf what made you change your mind on the whole self censorship thing?

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 11:44am:

Have you changed your mind?

having second thoughts now fd?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:23am: I’m a bit surprised you think all that needs to be said is inappropriate and cultural sensitivities and that’s it. Cartoonists, publishers, people should rub it all out and think up something unoffensive, without even being told what it is that offends. You seem to misunderstand. To be honest I'm not really sure what you are saying. My point is pretty simple in fact - cartoonists should be free to be dicks, and opponents should be free to object and say it was a stupid thing to do without being an underminer of free speech. Whether or not they give a good reason for their objection is neither here nor there.

Of course it’s here nor there. When you criticize someone else’s point of view, you have to say why. The only excuse I can think of for not doing this is if the point of view is so ridiculous and offensive as to be obvious.

But even here, I’m finding that, slowly, the ridiculous and offensive is taking over our mainstream discourse. Skills in responding to the ridiculous and offensive are becoming more important in the social media age.

I must admit, G, I can’t recall anyone saying something offended them without saying why. Can you?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 11:53am:

freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:44am: Gandalf what made you change your mind on the whole self censorship thing? freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:44am: Have you changed your mind? having second thoughts now fd?

Of course not. I am certain I should keep asking you this question.

By the way, what is the answer?

What made you change your mind on the whole 2008 FD thing?

You’ve never said.

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:53am: freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:44am: Gandalf what made you change your mind on the whole self censorship thing? freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:44am: Have you changed your mind? having second thoughts now fd? Of course not. I am certain I should keep asking you this question. By the way, what is the answer?

So you are certain that I changed my mind about it, but at the same time you want to ask me if I did. And now you are asking again. Are you now admitting that all along you didn't know what you previously stated as fact?

Could this be a bit like when you stated as unquestioned fact that I wanted to kill gays for flaunting their sexuality mardi gras style - then when challenged you retreated to "actually I don't know what the hell you said"?

I hope my question is easier to answer than FD’s, G.

His are a piece of cake, so mine should be a breeze.

Quote:

So you are certain that I changed my mind about it, but at the same time you want to ask me if I did. And now you are asking again. Are you now admitting that all along you didn't know what you previously stated as fact?

I know that you have previously stated you support self censorship, and have spent the last few pages avoiding talking about it. I have no idea exactly what has changed. I suspect it is the same views in different wrapping paper. Hence the questions you will not answer.

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 8:48pm:

I know that you have previously stated you support self censorship

So you keep saying.

Honestly I don't recall. The last time you tried to prove this you ended up quoting yourself making the accusation. Do you have anything else?

I don't recall trying to prove it previously. I only noticed it recently. You only decided recently you were opposed to self censorship.

FD have you ever stopped yourself from saying something bad? Say like you felt like abusing someone for being inconsiderate - but you thought better of it? I believe a common phrase for that is "bite your tongue". Does that fall under "self censorship" in your view? If it does, then by all means call me a supporter of self-censorship. But its not the definition I was talking about, which was specifically related to refraining due to external threats/intimidation - perceived or otherwise.

Its this sort of self-censorship that I oppose and always opposed, and you support.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 1:10pm:

FD have you ever stopped yourself from saying something bad? Say like you felt like abusing someone for being inconsiderate - but you thought better of it? I believe a common phrase for that is "bite your tongue".

Yes, G, I agree. Any chance you could say why the cartoon of Muhammed FD likes so much is offensive and should be self-censored?

As discussed, I personally can't see what's bad about it, but that's just me. Is there something I should be aware of here?

you don't think racial caricatures of a reverred prophet in a demeaning and explicit sexual pose would be offensive?

The point is mute - as no one disputes the fact that they were published specifically to offend. And I'm not talking about the picture on the home page of this site, or other similar ones.

Interesting how Charlie Hebdo thought self-censorship was a great idea when it came to offending jews.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 4:27pm:

you don't think racial caricatures of a reverred prophet in a demeaning and explicit sexual pose would be offensive? The point is mute - as no one disputes the fact that they were published specifically to offend. And I'm not talking about the picture on the home page of this site, or other similar ones. Interesting how Charlie Hebdo thought self-censorship was a great idea when it came to offending jews.

I'm only talking about the one FD puts up here. The hundred lashes cartoon. No, I don't think racial features are offensive - at all. I don't think Elmer Fudd is offensive, or Captain Haddock, or the Mikado, or Fiddler on the Roof.

And as you've said, you're as Arabic as I am, so I doubt you'd feel this way because of your own ethnicity.

Yes - the Muhammed cartoon with his balls hanging out was deliberately provocative. I would not be publishing that if I was in the same position.

But if you believe any images of Muhammed should not be published because of some people's religious beliefs, I think that's unfair. I'd see that as exactly the clash of civilizations some here are getting at. P!ss Christ is legal and shown, even if it offends some people's religious sensibilities. We expect them to cop it and look away.

This is an important aspect of civilization. It's how we all get on. We also get on by not seeking to deliberately offend people for its own sake. Art that does this is just dumb, and yes, it should be self-censored. Personally, I think most of Jeff Koon's art should be self-censored, but that's just me. I find giant puppy dogs and Michael Jacksons far more offensive that P!ss Christs, but I also know that Jeff Koons is making this point - he's out to get me. Equally, I'm aware that P!ss Christ is making this point, and ultimately, it's a pretty dumb point. Such didactic crap is just dull. It doesn't resonate. No one knows what P!ss Christ looks like, and no one really cares. The point is just the reaction - the offence.

Karnal wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 4:47pm:

The point is just the reaction - the offence.

That is, to demonstrate that nobody has the right to be sheltered from offensive things.
Not even Muslims.

Muslims cannot and must not demand that the society they find themselves in shelter them for anything and everything they may find offensive.

But if they do demand such things, they should be ridiculed and offended.  Which is what Charlie Hebdo was about - ridiculing and offending everyone - Jews, Catholics, Muslims, gay, cripples - who made special claims on the grounds of their sensibilities.

Gandalf once argued that all criticism of Islam is based on racism. No wonder he pulls out the race card every time someone draws a picture of Muhammed. Would it be less offensive if we made Muhammed Chinese, or a midget?


Quote:

Does that fall under "self censorship" in your view? If it does, then by all means call me a supporter of self-censorship. But its not the definition I was talking about, which was specifically related to refraining due to external threats/intimidation - perceived or otherwise.

You keep making subtle but important changes to this definition.


Quote:

you don't think racial caricatures of a reverred prophet in a demeaning and explicit sexual pose would be offensive?

Other than it depeicting his race, how is it a racial caricature? Does your criteria make all political style cartoons a racial caricature?


Quote:

The point is mute - as no one disputes the fact that they were published specifically to offend.

I expect they were published to sell papers.


Quote:

Interesting how Charlie Hebdo thought self-censorship was a great idea when it came to offending jews.

Exercising editorial control is not self censorship. This accusation has been continually hurled at Charlie Hebdo by the various apologists, and merely reflects a lack of comprehension of freedom of speech.

I always have a giggle when they refer to muslims as a race. The intellect is astounding.

Soren wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 5:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 4:47pm: The point is just the reaction - the offence. That is, to demonstrate that nobody has the right to be sheltered from offensive things. Not even Muslims. Muslims cannot and must not demand that the society they find themselves in shelter them for anything and everything they may find offensive. But if they do demand such things, they should be ridiculed and offended.  Which is what Charlie Hebdo was about - ridiculing and offending everyone - Jews, Catholics, Muslims, gay, cripples - who made special claims on the grounds of their sensibilities.

And if so, good on them - up to a point.  Cartoons, articles - art; offending on its own does not cut it, you need a wider.purpose.

This is why the Jesus and Mo comics are so dull. They don’t say anything. Their sole purpose is to include Jesus and Mo’s image in a frame. They achieved their objective after the first panel. Done.

P!ss Christ is dumb because it’s solely didactic. Visual aesthetics don’t necessarily have to look "good", but they do have to engage beyond a shallow one-liner.

If a text doesn’t do this, it’s no more than propaganda.

Much like muslims trying to fit in in the west , its just dumb.

Alas, your own efforts are the very definition of propaganda, Ordinary.

Karnal wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 8:24pm:

Alas, your own efforts are the very definition of propaganda, Ordinary.

You do realize running around trying to make out posters are other posters is just DUMB. (See my previous post)

Karnal wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 4:47pm:

No, I don't think racial features are offensive - at all. I don't think Elmer Fudd is offensive, or Captain Haddock, or the Mikado, or Fiddler on the Roof. And as you've said, you're as Arabic as I am, so I doubt you'd feel this way because of your own ethnicity.

None of those racial caricatures you listed were meant to be offensive - quite the opposite in fact. Nazi-era jewish caricatures, for example, which aim to make jewish religious and racial features (hook nose, big teethy grin, beard, hair locks, skull cap etc) synonymous with such negative attributes as greed and deceit, are completely off-limits in today's media. Any cartoonist who publishes such an image in a mainstream publication will have about a 2 second career after that.

Today's Muhammad/Islam caricatures are not very different - they cleverly associate racist arabic depictions (eg long thin nose, deep heavy eyebrows, heavy dark eyes etc) with negative muslim attributes. Just further proof, if any is needed, that Islamophobia is a form of racism.

And you're right I'm not an arab - in fact neither are most muslims. Its for that very reason it is offensive: that I and most of my fellow muslims are reduced to negative caricatures of a race I don't even belong to.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 6:38pm:

Gandalf once argued that all criticism of Islam is based on racism.

*facepalm* show me the quote FD.


freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 6:38pm:

Exercising editorial control is not self censorship. This accusation has been continually hurled at Charlie Hebdo by the various apologists, and merely reflects a lack of comprehension of freedom of speech.

There is absolutely no reason why exercising editorial control cannot be self-censorship. If their only reason not to publish was a perceived backlash from the jewish lobby, then its self-censorship. I daresay they also self-censored when they chose to publish only inoffensive Muhammad cartoons after the shooting. No more naked ball-hanging Muhammads.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 14^th, 2015 at 12:51pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 4:47pm: No, I don't think racial features are offensive - at all. I don't think Elmer Fudd is offensive, or Captain Haddock, or the Mikado, or Fiddler on the Roof. And as you've said, you're as Arabic as I am, so I doubt you'd feel this way because of your own ethnicity. None of those racial caricatures you listed were meant to be offensive - quite the opposite in fact. Nazi-era jewish caricatures, for example, which aim to make jewish religious and racial features (hook nose, big teethy grin, beard, hair locks, skull cap etc) synonymous with such negative attributes as greed and deceit, are completely off-limits in today's media. Any cartoonist who publishes such an  image in a mainstream publication will have about a 2 second career after that. Today's Muhammad/Islam caricatures are not very different - they cleverly associate racist arabic depictions (eg long thin nose, deep heavy eyebrows, heavy dark eyes etc) with negative muslim attributes. Just further proof, if any is needed, that Islamophobia is a form of racism. And you're right I'm not an arab - in fact neither are most muslims. Its for that very reason it is offensive: that I and most of my fellow muslims are reduced to negative caricatures of a race I don't even belong to.

I don't think Charlie Hebdo are caricaturizing a race. They're illustrating a caricature of Muhammed. The reason Nazi cartoons of Jews are off-limits today is that those images were propaganda. They were intended to present Jews as crooked, money-hungry schemers.

The image of Muhammed we're discussing does no such thing. It's a light-hearted, iconoclastic stab at a religious figure: a hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine. 

I haven't seen evidence of racism in Charlie Hebdo. I've only seen the images that went viral. I can't see why anyone would take offence to it - unless they're expecting secular publications to defer to a religious ban on the illustration of a prophet.

Now I know you're not coming out with this, but I do wonder if it lies at the heart of your criticism. To expect secular or even atheist publications/broadcasts to toe the line on Medieval rulings is completely unfair. South Park had similar problems with death threats and complaints. In the end, the network banned an episode containing the image of Muhammed - an example of the sort of "self-censorship" you've described here.

Personally, I think Trey Parker should have the freedom to say what he likes on his own TV show - within reason, but I understand the security issues a network like Fox would have, particularly after the Charlie Hebdo shooting proved these fears to be legitimate.

Parker has satirized Jesus (or more accurately, Christians) for years. He's not coming from a racist or offensive place. Like Charlie Hebdo, South Park is an example of satire, a genre that rulers have banned for millennia. Plato even banned satire in the Republic.

Trey Parker and others should have every right to depict Muhammed or Jesus. Muslims and Christians would benefit from laughing along. Piousness for its own sake goes against almost all the spiritual teachings. Elevating prophets to the position of gods is the problem Islam has with religions like Christianity. I'm not saying mere illustrations of Muhammed counters this, but I do think satire has an important place in society and religion. Satire is about questioning the hubris of those in power, sure, but it also asks you to question your own hubris. Saying certain things or figures are off-limits to satire is the very phenomenon satire satirizes.

Viewing satire, or allowing it to exist, does not mean you agree with the message. There are good reasons why Muslims do not illustrate Muhammed, and they're not about satirizing Muhammed, but deifying him.

But if you're arguing such images are racist, I think you need to show how. Illustrations of racial features are not implicitly racist. Racism must exist somewhere in the tone or the purpose of the text. The purpose of Nazi cartoons of Jews and the purpose of a satirical magazine like Charlie Hebdo are totally at odds. Sure, you can argue there are similarities, but to prove this you need to show how.

Karnal wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 8:14pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 5:13pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 4:47pm: The point is just the reaction - the offence. That is, to demonstrate that nobody has the right to be sheltered from offensive things. Not even Muslims. Muslims cannot and must not demand that the society they find themselves in shelter them for anything and everything they may find offensive. But if they do demand such things, they should be ridiculed and offended.  Which is what Charlie Hebdo was about - ridiculing and offending everyone - Jews, Catholics, Muslims, gay, cripples - who made special claims on the grounds of their sensibilities. And if so, good on them - up to a point.  Cartoons, articles - art; offending on its own does not cut it, you need a wider.purpose. This is why the Jesus and Mo comics are so dull. They don’t say anything. Their sole purpose is to include Jesus and Mo’s image in a frame. They achieved their objective after the first panel. Done. P!ss Christ is dumb because it’s solely didactic. Visual aesthetics don’t necessarily have to look "good", but they do have to engage beyond a shallow one-liner. If a text doesn’t do this, it’s no more than propaganda.

Nonsense. On stilts, as usual.

Religions make far too big claims for themselves. Christianity claims to be meeker than its priestly class really is and Islam is claiming to be peaceful when it's anything but.

That is the point of the Jesus and Mo cartoons, to poke fun at their respective self-aggrandisings. That Mo comes off as second best in most of these strips is due to the evident and completely undeniable savagery and violence of his followers. 

Quote:

*facepalm* show me the quote FD.

Sure. Here is one I prepared 6 minutes earlier. Thanks to Gandalf:


Quote:

Today's Muhammad/Islam caricatures are not very different - they cleverly associate racist arabic depictions (eg long thin nose, deep heavy eyebrows, heavy dark eyes etc) with negative muslim attributes. Just further proof, if any is needed, that Islamophobia is a form of racism.

Quote:

There is absolutely no reason why exercising editorial control cannot be self-censorship.

It can be, but the fact that they do exercise editorial control is not evidence of self censorship. This is usually where the argument ends - Charlie Hebdo declined to publish such and such, therefor they are self censoring.


Quote:

If their only reason not to publish was a perceived backlash from the jewish lobby, then its self-censorship.

Are you suggesting Charlie Hebdo is afraid of a Jewish backlash?


Quote:

Parker has satirized Jesus (or more accurately, Christians) for years

Both Jesus and Santa are regular characters.


Quote:

That Mo comes off as second best in most of these strips is due to the evident and completely undeniable savagery and violence of his followers.

 

And Muhammed himself.

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2015 at 6:27pm:

Sure. Here is one I prepared 6 minutes earlier. Thanks to Gandalf:

What a monumentally stupid thing to say FD.

Islamophobia is not "all criticism of Islam" - gedit????

It would seem that way according to muslims and apologists.
the first word trotted out is Islamophobia.

Islamophobia is actually a fear of Islam. Something most muslims suffer from themselves.

Islamophobia. Pictures of Muhammed.

What else is racist Gandalf?

Also, when did you realise that self censorship was a bad thing? Was it when you decided to become a standard bearer?

averageguy wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 11:15am:

It would seem that way according to muslims and apologists. the first word trotted out is Islamophobia. Islamophobia is actually a fear of Islam. Something most muslims suffer from themselves.

Good to have a new member join in our little discussion, Average. Welcome aboard.

If anyone accuses you of being Matty, make sure you deny it.

Karnal wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

averageguy wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 11:15am: It would seem that way according to muslims and apologists. the first word trotted out is Islamophobia. Islamophobia is actually a fear of Islam. Something most muslims suffer from themselves. Good to have a new member join in our little discussion, Average. Welcome aboard. If anyone accuses you of being Matty, make sure you deny it.

If anyone ever accuses you of being an imbecile don't deny it.

averageguy wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 1:16pm: averageguy wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 11:15am: It would seem that way according to muslims and apologists. the first word trotted out is Islamophobia. Islamophobia is actually a fear of Islam. Something most muslims suffer from themselves. Good to have a new member join in our little discussion, Average. Welcome aboard. If anyone accuses you of being Matty, make sure you deny it. If anyone ever accuses you of being an imbecile don't deny it.

Thanks, Average. I must say, that’s not the sort of language we’d expect from a new member.

You haven’t been here before, have you?

Karnal wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 1:43pm:

averageguy wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 1:25pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 1:16pm: averageguy wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 11:15am: It would seem that way according to muslims and apologists. the first word trotted out is Islamophobia. Islamophobia is actually a fear of Islam. Something most muslims suffer from themselves. Good to have a new member join in our little discussion, Average. Welcome aboard. If anyone accuses you of being Matty, make sure you deny it. If anyone ever accuses you of being an imbecile don't deny it. Thanks, Average. I must say, that’s not the sort of language we’d expect from a new member. You haven’t been here before, have you?

There is no we, just you. No need to get upset that I can smell a troll like yourself a mile away though.

You didn’t answer the question, Average. If you’re an old member, just say who. We’ll all welcome you back, you know.

Karnal wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 6:14pm:

You didn’t answer the question, Average. If you’re an old member, just say who. We’ll all welcome you back, you know.

It was a good answer though.  I am astonished at how many posts with  requests, demands include a "we". 

It is a collective and bullying behaviour to presume to speak for others or assume a mantle of authority from majority. 

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 6:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 6:14pm: You didn’t answer the question, Average. If you’re an old member, just say who. We’ll all welcome you back, you know. It was a good answer though.  I am astonished at how many posts with  requests, demands include a "we".  It is a collective and bullying behaviour to presume to speak for others or assume a mantle of authority from majority.

I don’t know, Secret. What if we have a collection of socks we’re speaking on behalf of?

What’s wrong with that?

Karnal wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 8:31pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 6:54pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 6:14pm: You didn’t answer the question, Average. If you’re an old member, just say who. We’ll all welcome you back, you know. It was a good answer though.  I am astonished at how many posts with  requests, demands include a "we".  It is a collective and bullying behaviour to presume to speak for others or assume a mantle of authority from majority.  I don’t know, Secret. What if we have a collection of socks we’re speaking on behalf of? What’s wrong with that?

A we of one speaking as a collective.    ::)

Karnal wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 6:14pm:

You didn’t answer the question, Average. If you’re an old member, just say who. We’ll all welcome you back, you know.

I don't need to answer trolls and again there is no we just YOU troll.

averageguy wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 10:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 6:14pm: You didn’t answer the question, Average. If you’re an old member, just say who. We’ll all welcome you back, you know. I don't need to answer trolls and again there is no we just YOU troll.

We blame Islam here, Average. We don’t want them in our country.

Better?

Karnal wrote on Oct 17^th, 2015 at 8:39am:

averageguy wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 10:55pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 6:14pm: You didn’t answer the question, Average. If you’re an old member, just say who. We’ll all welcome you back, you know. I don't need to answer trolls and again there is no we just YOU troll. We blame Islam here, Average. We don’t want them in our country. Better?

I thought people that call themselves Palestinians such as yourself ;D were too busy blaming Israel and making up fake films and fake families they blew up. I am not sure why a muslim such as yourself wouldn't want muslims in your country Israel.

I’ve never called myself a Palestinian, Average, but you’re new here. It’s an easy mistake to make.

We’re all friends here, Average. You’ll see.

Karnal wrote on Oct 17^th, 2015 at 1:20pm:

I’ve never called myself a Palestinian, Average, but you’re new here. It’s an easy mistake to make. We’re all friends here, Average. You’ll see.

No mistake, I read a post where you did. You are better off denying it anyway hey, since there is no indigenous Palestinians at all anyway.

averageguy wrote on Oct 17^th, 2015 at 1:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:20pm: I’ve never called myself a Palestinian, Average, but you’re new here. It’s an easy mistake to make. We’re all friends here, Average. You’ll see. No mistake, I read a post where you did. You are better off denying it anyway hey, since there is no indigenous Palestinians at all anyway.

He's a Paki, not a Pallo.

Soren wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

averageguy wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:50pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:20pm: I’ve never called myself a Palestinian, Average, but you’re new here. It’s an easy mistake to make. We’re all friends here, Average. You’ll see. No mistake, I read a post where you did. You are better off denying it anyway hey, since there is no indigenous Palestinians at all anyway. He's a Paki, not a Pallo.

We're all the same, old boy.

Soren wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

averageguy wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:50pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 17th, 2015 at 1:20pm: I’ve never called myself a Palestinian, Average, but you’re new here. It’s an easy mistake to make. We’re all friends here, Average. You’ll see. No mistake, I read a post where you did. You are better off denying it anyway hey, since there is no indigenous Palestinians at all anyway. He's a Paki, not a Pallo.

That would explain the lobotomy, NO?

Now now, if we prick Sore End, does he not bleed?

I’m.curious.

Now now homo, if we prick a paki muslim, does he not riot in the street with his mates killing innocent women and children at local cafes ?

I’m even more curious.

freediver wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 12:52pm:

Islamophobia. Pictures of Muhammed. What else is racist Gandalf? Also, when did you realise that self censorship was a bad thing? Was it when you decided to become a standard bearer?

Do you understand yet how not all criticism of Islam is Islamophobic yet? You seem to have difficulty on this point.

Also I'm still waiting for you to show me where I supported self censorship. If you think its simply stopping yourself from being rude to someone because you know its wrong (aka 'biting your tongue'), then sure count me as a spineless supporter of self censorship. But if its the definition I gave (stopping yourself from saying something you believe should be said only through fear of external pressure - you know like what you support), then I don't think you'll ever find me supporting it. But happy to stand corrected if you can find it.

I love it when they cry racist. Its like DUH have another big glass of SPASTIC NUB. Islam is not a race just a club of nutters.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2015 at 9:24am:

freediver wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 12:52pm: Islamophobia. Pictures of Muhammed. What else is racist Gandalf? Also, when did you realise that self censorship was a bad thing? Was it when you decided to become a standard bearer? Do you understand yet how not all criticism of Islam is Islamophobic yet? You seem to have difficulty on this point.

What are your criticisms of Islam, Gandy?

Quote:

Do you understand yet how not all criticism of Islam is Islamophobic yet?

Please explain this for us Gandalf. I am particularly interested in how you might apply this logic to a picture of Muhammed that makes him appear kind of middle eastern.


Quote:

Also I'm still waiting for you to show me where I supported self censorship.

I didn't realise you were denying it. Last I heard you were having difficulty recalling. I'm sure you must have some recollection of changing your mind or realising what you were doing.

It was Charlie Hebdo, wasn't it Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

It was Charlie Hebdo, wasn't it Gandalf?

It must have been, FD. You posted their pics here.

You’re really very brave, you know.

Karnal wrote on Oct 26^th, 2015 at 11:00pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 25th, 2015 at 9:29pm: It was Charlie Hebdo, wasn't it Gandalf? It must have been, FD. You posted their pics here. You’re really very brave, you know.

Why homo are you an Islamophobe ?

miam miam

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2015 at 8:06pm:

Please explain this for us Gandalf. I am particularly interested in how you might apply this logic to a picture of Muhammed that makes him appear kind of middle eastern.

Whether or not I consider caricatures of Muhammad racist is not the question here.

The question is you accusing me of saying *ALL* criticism of Islam is racist, and then claiming a quote of me saying Muhammad caricatures are racist is somehow proof of that accusation.

And now rather than stop and think of how stupid that logic is, your tact now seems to be to get me to disprove your own stupid claim.

So for example, FD can apparently prove that I believe the claim that the Quran is bloodthirsty and supports oppression is racist - because he can quote me saying Muhammad caricatures are racist.

Thats literally how stupid your claim is FD.

How on earth can a Muhammad caricature be racist. ?

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2015 at 8:06pm:

I didn't realise you were denying it.

I've only been asking you to clarify this 'changing my mind' business for about the last 10 pages.

Any progress on that front yet FD?

Here's an example for you:


polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

freediver wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 9:27pm: Self censorship is a reasonable course of action? Absolutely. Its called being responsible gatekeepers of the infomation available. News rooms have to make these calls all the time - deciding whether its responsible to potentially inflame volatile relationships between groups by publishing contentious material. freediver wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 9:27pm: Publishing the Muhammed cartoons would not stoke the "anti Muslim flames". I disagree. The bomb in the turban cartoon made pretty clear insinuations about the entire muslim community.

Quote:

Whether or not I consider caricatures of Muhammad racist is not the question here.

Should I start another thread so it can be the question?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

freediver wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 9:27pm: Self censorship is a reasonable course of action? Absolutely. Its called being responsible gatekeepers of the infomation available. News rooms have to make these calls all the time - deciding whether its responsible to potentially inflame volatile relationships between groups by publishing contentious material.

gandalf,

QUESTION;
Should a moslem be expected to self censor, and refrain from expressing his own criminal incitement, whenever a moslem is offended by the secular views/opinions of someone who is not a moslem ?


FOR EXAMPLE;

IMAGE....
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/08/27/1227038/812722-d0870956-2cc7-11e4-a978-2255e0b773c2.jpg

"Behead those who insult ISLAM"

My own opinion is that;
THIS INCITEMENT TO MURDER - ON DISPLAY, ON A SYDNEY STREET - MUST BE DEEMED TO BE ABHORRENT AND UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOUR, by every individual who wants to reside within every Western secular society.



The image above depicts a protest by moslems - IN AUSTRALIA - on the streets of Sydney from Hyde Park to George Streets, September 15, 2012

This protest by moslems, is in response to a person on another planet, a person on another continent, making a movie, which was deemed to be offensive, by 'the moslem'.




.



PROPOSITION;
gandalf is NOT saying that this display [in the image above] is either an appropriate or an acceptable response, by any moslem who is offended, by the expressed opinion(s) of someone who is not a moslem.

Please correct me, gandalf, if you believe that i am mis-representing your position on this issue.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

freediver wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 9:27pm: Publishing the Muhammed cartoons would not stoke the "anti Muslim flames". I disagree. The bomb in the turban cartoon made pretty clear insinuations about the entire muslim community.

gandalf,

Many would argue, that if 'the moslem' wants to live within a majority secular society [and if 'the moslem' wants to enjoy all of the benefits and freedoms that the majority secular 'environment' bestows upon him - and his community], then the moslem must choose to accept the standards of acceptance and tolerance, and freedom of expression, which prevails within that secular society.

If the moslem cannot do that, if 'the moslem' [as a group] wants to have a 'hissy fit', every time that someone says something which conflicts with his own worldview, then 'the moslem' should not remain, and imo, 'the moslem' [as a group] should not be permitted to remain in that society, imo.



If we [as individuals] cannot express how we feel, without choosing to visit violence [or choosing to express the incitement of violence] upon another individual, then there is something wrong with our worldview, imo.

Don't you agree, gandalf ?


In zoos around the world, zoo managers and keepers have come to the conclusion that creatures wolves [and other predators] must be kept in enclosures, by themselves, with their own kind.




Discussion: Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4341076.htm


Quote:

SAM HARRIS: .....we need to recognise that we are inching our way towards a global civil society and that free speech simply has to win and that self-censorship that we have all practised after the Danish cartoon controversy or even before after Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, a kind of self censorship that has been urged upon us by liberals for the most part, on the one hand, but then also our own religion demagogues who are worried about their own cases of blasphemy on the other, that's - it's a dead end. It's a cul-de-sac ethically and politically that we have to find our way out of and we have to treat the Muslim community worldwide as adults who have to tolerate satire and have to tolerate free speech and have to tolerate pluralism and human rights. And we have to oblige them with every tool at our disposal, whether it's economic or whether it's military or whether it's a matter of police enforcement. It depends at what level of society we're encountering this problem. But these principles have to be non-negotiable and we really are not even at the starting line in our liberal discourse about this and that's what my collaboration with Maajid is hoping to kindle in us, a - an understanding of what the first step forward is.

You are correct Yadda - incitement to violence should (and is) unlawful. That is quite a separate issue to what I was talking about. Not many people defend the right to incite violence. FD probably does.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 9:37am:

You are correct Yadda - incitement to violence should (and is) unlawful. That is quite a separate issue to what I was talking about. Not many people defend the right to incite violence. FD probably does.

I do not agree.


FD is simply a very liberal person,      ...and the owner of a public forum dedicated to debate and discussion of topical issues.



Dictionary;
liberal = =
1 respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.     (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms.     [Theology] regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
3 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.


That cannot be said of a moslem,       ....not of any moslem, imo.

n.b.
I'm describing a moslem who really is a moslem [openly, candidly].


Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.




.





Quote:

"[a respected moslem community spokesman has] called on Australian Muslims to spurn secular democracy and Western notions of moderate Islam... ...[moslems in Australia were told] that democracy is "haram" (forbidden) for Muslims, whose political engagement should be be based purely on Islamic law. "We must adhere to Islam and Islam alone," Mr Hanif [said]"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/australia-members-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-say-country-is-god-forsaken-and-that-muslims-must-shun-secular-a.html




.




"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4



.



"Fighting [against disbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111



.




Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen;

THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.



Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;


Quote:

YT KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE "...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems." "....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God." "...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God." "...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM." "...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does." "...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]" "...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4