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


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

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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.

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


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.

Quote:


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:


Sounds like you are creating a false dichotomy here Gandalf.

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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

Quote:


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:


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?

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


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.

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:


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:


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?

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].

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


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.