Saker’s blog digression regarding the recent events in Paris reveals a major cleavage among the many readers of this blog, namely that separating people who believe in afterlife from those who don’t. I suggest to those belonging to the second category to agree to the simple principle of respecting the first category by NOT condoning, encouraging, and supporting acts of verbal vandalism against any religion or religious figure masqueraded as ‘freedom of speech’ cartoons.
Freedom of speech is free when it is also constructive by taking into account the vast majority of people (believers and nonbelievers alike) and when it focuses on human systemic failures (ex. the current financial system, the current political system, etc.).
aViewer
Anonymous 4:10
“There are no half-measures with free speech and freedom of expression.”
Would that that were the case! Not least, in France. What about the harassment of Sorel and of those who simply make a Quenelle? Perhaps Sorel will find himself in a more supportive atmosphere now!
But to return to the supposed absolute feature of freedom of speech, I think there is a difference between grossly satirizing your OWN religion and doing so regarding others’ religion. That is where the “hate speech” issue crops up. Is hate speech against, say, Jews protected in France? How come there was a race to “protect” Jewish sites in Paris, but not mosques, as far as I know. Is this “freedom to insult” really even-handed? Satire has its role, but it doesn’t constitute a useful platform for honest, substantive critique of a whole religion—if that is what the supposed “satirist” is intending. Childish insults of revered individuals at the 10-year-old “you eat poo poo” level should just go away quietly or never see the light of day. This kind of thing really does not constitute “epater le bourgeoisie.” And I wonder of the arrogance of cartoonists who feel themselves called to gross out believers of all religions, just for the record. Excpet maybe Judaism? Did Charlie Hebdo ever feature on its cover an attack cartoon on Jews and their truly ridiculous beliefs, especially Zionists? Beliefs that believers take as justification for all kinds of terrible repressions? Where was Charlie Hebdo on that???
Perhaps Charlie Hebdo’s publications should have been assessed openly by the public, so a vote could be taken as to whether it was art or just a cheap gross-out. Probably the same goes for the Charlie group: satire or “poo poo” humor?
The event surrounding the Charlie Hebdo incident suggest that the public that rallies for free speech is not getting the “whole story.” Where do demands for “free speech” and the “whole story” and “the truth” and the right not to be manipulated with lies intersect?
@9:03
“Freedom of expression does NOT imply anything, responsibility of own actions included, rather it allows Free Thinkers to express whatever they like without fear of personal attack, censure, or recrimination.”
Clearly you do not understand the legal risk of slander and liable. Perhaps you should go try some of your ‘free expression’ on a rich person with good lawyers and then see what happens.
Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born,
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night.
We are led to believe a lie
When we see not thro’ the eye,
Which was born in a night to perish in a night,
When the soul slept in beams of light.
Wake up, see through the eye of truth, question, criticize, satirize, ridicule all dogmas, it is your basic human right…
Freedom is NOT free, you must fight for IT, sometimes people are killed for IT, in our behalf.
Wake up Saker, re-consider your anti-charlie comments, which you are free to express but were wrong in essence & against the wonderful solidarity that you were able to generate in your blog… Now, many will be turning away from your guidance in the turmoil that we are witnessing around us. You have destroyed, with your incredible stand against basic human right of freedom of expression, a chance to rally many seekers of truth, in particular in the West, in times when it was probably needed the most, and when you were able to generate a lot of support from us, shame on you, really, as now many will turn away in discuss at the simple mention of your name.
You have destroyed, with your incredible stand against basic human right of freedom of expression, a chance to rally many seekers of truth, in particular in the West, in times when it was probably needed the most, and when you were able to generate a lot of support from us, shame on you, really, as now many will turn away in discuss at the simple mention of your name.
There are many things I did which I regret from the bottom of my heart but saying the truth about the French 9/11 and those who got conned by it is not one of them. In fact, being one of the first ones to denounce this was possibly one of the most important things I ever did on this blog. Oh sure, this angered and offended some, possibly many, but I was right to ring the alarm and speak the truth. In my life I have a simple principle: do what is right and don’t worry about the consequences. So you are wasting your time trying to tell me that I will lose readers – first because this probably not true, for one leaving two will come, but mainly because I don’t care one bit.
Je suis Charlie, and we are many
Yes you are indeed. And that is what saddens me most.
The reason so many readers here feel so strongly about the hypocrisy displayed in Paris is because of the deafening silence from the western media and officialdom over the Odessa Massacre. When all of Europe was not deadly silent, they blamed the victims, as if these elderly pensioners, women, and children doused themselves with lighter fluid and set themselves on fire and shot and strangled themselves. But they were just a bunch of potato beetles, so who cares.
Saker speaks from his conscience, and he didn’t create his blog in the first place to please anybody and why should he change now just because he has a bigger audience? It’s his blog, and he doesn’t have to answer to anyone. That’s why most of us come here, it is so refreshing to hear an independent and contrarian train of thought.
Well, we are at the point in time when we could clearly see the divide between thous who thinks and thous who can be forced by emotion. Saker, life is life – shit happens. Thous who manipulated by emotions will burn in fire of war soon. Just look at Ukraine, perfect example. Saker, good luck to you! Stay come, stay sharp….
If you substitute one of the S’s in ‘je suis’ with the next letter of the latin alphabet, you get an idea who is behind it. Here’s a hint: the same folk who created Heath Ledger’s Joker character.
Anon wrote “In return by saying ‘I am NOT Charlie’ you are compromising your own right of freedom of expression”
Nonsense and a logical fallacy. The premise that the meme “I am Charlie” is synonymous with freedom of speech and that to reject the meme is to reject freedom of speech is fallacious. This is known as the false dichotomy in logic. Kinda like that old cliche “your either with us or against us when you can be neither.
Lets see how your argument works out in logic.
Freedom of speech is a right.
Charlie has freedom of speech.
Therefore i must be Charlie to have freedom of speech.
Which is like saying:
All mammals breath air.
A Cat is a mammal.
Therefore i must be cat in order to breath.
This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
To all Anonymous pro-Charlie, French or nonFrench
Saker’s blog digression regarding the recent events in Paris reveals a major cleavage among the many readers of this blog, namely that separating people who believe in afterlife from those who don’t. I suggest to those belonging to the second category to agree to the simple principle of respecting the first category by NOT condoning, encouraging, and supporting acts of verbal vandalism against any religion or religious figure masqueraded as ‘freedom of speech’ cartoons.
Freedom of speech is free when it is also constructive by taking into account the vast majority of people (believers and nonbelievers alike) and when it focuses on human systemic failures (ex. the current financial system, the current political system, etc.).
aViewer
Anonymous 4:10
“There are no half-measures with free speech and freedom of expression.”
Would that that were the case! Not least, in France. What about the harassment of Sorel and of those who simply make a Quenelle? Perhaps Sorel will find himself in a more supportive atmosphere now!
But to return to the supposed absolute feature of freedom of speech, I think there is a difference between grossly satirizing your OWN religion and doing so regarding others’ religion. That is where the “hate speech” issue crops up. Is hate speech against, say, Jews protected in France? How come there was a race to “protect” Jewish sites in Paris, but not mosques, as far as I know. Is this “freedom to insult” really even-handed? Satire has its role, but it doesn’t constitute a useful platform for honest, substantive critique of a whole religion—if that is what the supposed “satirist” is intending. Childish insults of revered individuals at the 10-year-old “you eat poo poo” level should just go away quietly or never see the light of day. This kind of thing really does not constitute “epater le bourgeoisie.” And I wonder of the arrogance of cartoonists who feel themselves called to gross out believers of all religions, just for the record. Excpet maybe Judaism? Did Charlie Hebdo ever feature on its cover an attack cartoon on Jews and their truly ridiculous beliefs, especially Zionists? Beliefs that believers take as justification for all kinds of terrible repressions? Where was Charlie Hebdo on that???
Perhaps Charlie Hebdo’s publications should have been assessed openly by the public, so a vote could be taken as to whether it was art or just a cheap gross-out. Probably the same goes for the Charlie group: satire or “poo poo” humor?
The event surrounding the Charlie Hebdo incident suggest that the public that rallies for free speech is not getting the “whole story.” Where do demands for “free speech” and the “whole story” and “the truth” and the right not to be manipulated with lies intersect?
Katherine
@9:03
“Freedom of expression does NOT imply anything, responsibility of own actions included, rather it allows Free Thinkers to express whatever they like without fear of personal attack, censure, or recrimination.”
Clearly you do not understand the legal risk of slander and liable. Perhaps you should go try some of your ‘free expression’ on a rich person with good lawyers and then see what happens.
Je suis qui je suis
I wrote 03:51 and 04:10
plus I replied at 09:03
Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born,
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night.
We are led to believe a lie
When we see not thro’ the eye,
Which was born in a night to perish in a night,
When the soul slept in beams of light.
Wake up, see through the eye of truth, question, criticize, satirize, ridicule all dogmas, it is your basic human right…
Freedom is NOT free, you must fight for IT, sometimes people are killed for IT, in our behalf.
Wake up Saker, re-consider your anti-charlie comments, which you are free to express but were wrong in essence & against the wonderful solidarity that you were able to generate in your blog… Now, many will be turning away from your guidance in the turmoil that we are witnessing around us. You have destroyed, with your incredible stand against basic human right of freedom of expression, a chance to rally many seekers of truth, in particular in the West, in times when it was probably needed the most, and when you were able to generate a lot of support from us, shame on you, really, as now many will turn away in discuss at the simple mention of your name.
So long, Sacker…
Je suis Charlie,
and we are many
@Charlie:
You have destroyed, with your incredible stand against basic human right of freedom of expression, a chance to rally many seekers of truth, in particular in the West, in times when it was probably needed the most, and when you were able to generate a lot of support from us, shame on you, really, as now many will turn away in discuss at the simple mention of your name.
There are many things I did which I regret from the bottom of my heart but saying the truth about the French 9/11 and those who got conned by it is not one of them. In fact, being one of the first ones to denounce this was possibly one of the most important things I ever did on this blog. Oh sure, this angered and offended some, possibly many, but I was right to ring the alarm and speak the truth. In my life I have a simple principle: do what is right and don’t worry about the consequences. So you are wasting your time trying to tell me that I will lose readers – first because this probably not true, for one leaving two will come, but mainly because I don’t care one bit.
Je suis Charlie, and we are many
Yes you are indeed. And that is what saddens me most.
The Saker
The reason so many readers here feel so strongly about the hypocrisy displayed in Paris is because of the deafening silence from the western media and officialdom over the Odessa Massacre. When all of Europe was not deadly silent, they blamed the victims, as if these elderly pensioners, women, and children doused themselves with lighter fluid and set themselves on fire and shot and strangled themselves. But they were just a bunch of potato beetles, so who cares.
Saker speaks from his conscience, and he didn’t create his blog in the first place to please anybody and why should he change now just because he has a bigger audience? It’s his blog, and he doesn’t have to answer to anyone. That’s why most of us come here, it is so refreshing to hear an independent and contrarian train of thought.
I doubt it was 3 million people Sounds to me like more hype. “Je Suis. . .” Wonder who thought that one up. A perfect mind-leash for the empty-headed.
Yes, the really worrying thing is that there are so many willing to get angry without the truth having any part of their concepts. It really is scary.
I wonder what is the best way for us to help Muslims now.
first the west tears apart their home in the Middle east to pieces, and then persecutes them here.
Did you see the Glenn Greenwald piece on ICH ? Very good I thought…here is the link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40666.htm
Well, we are at the point in time when we could clearly see the divide between thous who thinks and thous who can be forced by emotion. Saker, life is life – shit happens. Thous who manipulated by emotions will burn in fire of war soon. Just look at Ukraine, perfect example. Saker, good luck to you! Stay come, stay sharp….
If you substitute one of the S’s in ‘je suis’ with the next letter of the latin alphabet, you get an idea who is behind it. Here’s a hint: the same folk who created Heath Ledger’s Joker character.
@Joat said on
12 January, 2015 18:38,
Thanks, Joat, I usually follow professor VicenÇ Navarro, he speaks really clear about this so called “crisis” which is no but a fraud.
Where are you from, Joat?
Anon wrote “In return by saying ‘I am NOT Charlie’ you are compromising your own right of freedom of expression”
Nonsense and a logical fallacy. The premise that the meme “I am Charlie” is synonymous with freedom of speech and that to reject the meme is to reject freedom of speech is fallacious. This is known as the false dichotomy in logic. Kinda like that old cliche “your either with us or against us when you can be neither.
Lets see how your argument works out in logic.
Freedom of speech is a right.
Charlie has freedom of speech.
Therefore i must be Charlie to have freedom of speech.
Which is like saying:
All mammals breath air.
A Cat is a mammal.
Therefore i must be cat in order to breath.
This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.