Charlie Hebdo Paris shooting: 12 dead after gunmen storm newspaper's HQ

Options
1…1415171920…36

Comments

  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    not one person here, from everything I read, is saying the murders were justified, or that Charlie Hebdo got what they deserved, or "maybe they shouldn't have published that and it wouldn't have happened" sort of victim blaming some are claiming. I believe it is possible to abhore the atrocity but at the same time not necessarily outright supporting the content of the publishings. All we are saying is that I am not charlie. Because I would never write or publish the things they publish. Take it this way: why is America "with" charlie? would they be if the tables were turned? what if a bunch of Jewish nutjobs went out and slaughtered a bunch of Palestinian journalists for something they published that they viewed as anti-Semetic? would hollywood and everyone in the States be stating "IamGaza"? I doubt it.
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,289
    paulonious wrote: »
    not one person here, from everything I read, is saying the murders were justified, or that Charlie Hebdo got what they deserved, or "maybe they shouldn't have published that and it wouldn't have happened" sort of victim blaming some are claiming. I believe it is possible to abhore the atrocity but at the same time not necessarily outright supporting the content of the publishings. All we are saying is that I am not charlie. Because I would never write or publish the things they publish. Take it this way: why is America "with" charlie? would they be if the tables were turned? what if a bunch of Jewish nutjobs went out and slaughtered a bunch of Palestinian journalists for something they published that they viewed as anti-Semetic? would hollywood and everyone in the States be stating "IamGaza"? I doubt it.
    That newspaper made fun and disrespect of all religions.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.

    Don't like it? Don't read it.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • badbrains
    badbrains Posts: 10,255
    So godfather is pulling the Murdock card. Very classy godfather, oh and VERY fitting being that you prob have so much stock in faux news corp*
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    its all just a distraction by supporters to ease the attention towards the the shit bag group of people that did this...stop the media circus and wipe these fools out ! and that douch bag that claimmed repobsibilty for the attack should be ........well never mind. rant rant rant rant

    Godfather.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    Looks like quoting is fucked again. Probably just as well.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,332
    True but that makes it right?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,332
    Ok, need to repeal all hate speech statutes then.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    Jason P wrote: »
    paulonious wrote: »
    not one person here, from everything I read, is saying the murders were justified, or that Charlie Hebdo got what they deserved, or "maybe they shouldn't have published that and it wouldn't have happened" sort of victim blaming some are claiming. I believe it is possible to abhore the atrocity but at the same time not necessarily outright supporting the content of the publishings. All we are saying is that I am not charlie. Because I would never write or publish the things they publish. Take it this way: why is America "with" charlie? would they be if the tables were turned? what if a bunch of Jewish nutjobs went out and slaughtered a bunch of Palestinian journalists for something they published that they viewed as anti-Semetic? would hollywood and everyone in the States be stating "IamGaza"? I doubt it.
    That newspaper made fun and disrespect of all religions.

    I know. that wasn't my point at all. my point was, would everyone "be" charlie if the attacks were by a different group of extremists? or perpetuated on a different group?

    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    badbrains wrote: »
    So godfather is pulling the Murdock card. Very classy godfather, oh and VERY fitting being that you prob have so much stock in faux news corp*
    who is murdock ? and stock in fox news ? I do have stock in this country but not in fox .

    Godfather.
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    JimmyV wrote: »
    Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.

    Don't like it? Don't read it.

    I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.

    the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.

    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    Godfather. wrote: »
    its all just a distraction by supporters to ease the attention towards the the shit bag group of people that did this...stop the media circus and wipe these fools out ! and that douch bag that claimmed repobsibilty for the attack should be ........well never mind. rant rant rant rant

    Godfather.

    who are "all these fools" you wish to eradicate?

    all muslims? please no.

    all extremists? how do you find them? do they congregate in one big gymnasium every friday after work?

    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    paulonious wrote: »
    JimmyV wrote: »
    Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.

    Don't like it? Don't read it.

    I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.

    the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.

    Defending the right to publish something and defending what is published are two totally different things. I'm glad the magazine kept publishing and I hope they continue to make people uncomfortable. Particularly about religion. All religion.

    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,289
    Looks like the Belgium gun dealer who sold the weapons to the jihadist turned himself in and has started to rat his associates out ...

    news.yahoo.com/two-dead-police-raid-terror-suspects-belgium-195405277--abc-news-topstories.html
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    JimmyV wrote: »
    paulonious wrote: »
    JimmyV wrote: »
    Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.

    Don't like it? Don't read it.

    I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.

    the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.

    Defending the right to publish something and defending what is published are two totally different things. I'm glad the magazine kept publishing and I hope they continue to make people uncomfortable. Particularly about religion. All religion.

    but don't you think by adopting the moniker "I am Charlie" that means they are defending the content, and not just free speech?

    journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive. that's how you get the point across. otherwise you are just going to be hit back with blind rage.

    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    Hugh, my take supporting freedom of speech.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    edited January 2015
    fair enough, callen. I obviously could be wrong on this. I don't know enough about the magazine though. and I assume if I tried to research it now, everything would be biased.
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    edited January 2015
    paulonious wrote: »
    JimmyV wrote: »
    paulonious wrote: »
    JimmyV wrote: »
    Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.

    Don't like it? Don't read it.

    I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.

    the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.

    Defending the right to publish something and defending what is published are two totally different things. I'm glad the magazine kept publishing and I hope they continue to make people uncomfortable. Particularly about religion. All religion.

    but don't you think by adopting the moniker "I am Charlie" that means they are defending the content, and not just free speech?

    journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive. that's how you get the point across. otherwise you are just going to be hit back with blind rage.

    I take "I am Charlie" to mean "I stand with Charlie". Meaning that someone supports the magazine's right to publish. I don't think it is inappropriate given what happened, but I don't think it necessarily means someone is defending the content. I'm not big on monickers though so it is not a phrase I have used.

    Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.

    Post edited by JimmyV on
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    JimmyV wrote: »
    Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.
    *insert thumbs-up dude*
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    JimmyV wrote: »
    paulonious wrote: »
    JimmyV wrote: »
    paulonious wrote: »
    JimmyV wrote: »
    Personally, I am not going to reward the murderous savages who stormed that building and slaughtered those artists by condemning the cartoons that they did not like. That is exactly what they would have wanted and I will give none of them the satisfaction. Just as anyone who chooses to be critical of Charlie Hebdo is free to do so, I am free to not deep dive into and criticize the work of those who had their lives brutally ended simply because someone somewhere didn't like it.

    Don't like it? Don't read it.

    I really don't think the savages give a shit what north americans condemn or don't condemn.

    the point is not about who is criticizing charlie hebdo, the point is why are so many people standing up and defending what they publish? they are not simply stating "I'm sorry this happened". they are saying that they ARE charlie hebdo. I have a feeling most people who say this don't have even a remedial understanding as to its content.

    Defending the right to publish something and defending what is published are two totally different things. I'm glad the magazine kept publishing and I hope they continue to make people uncomfortable. Particularly about religion. All religion.

    but don't you think by adopting the moniker "I am Charlie" that means they are defending the content, and not just free speech?

    journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive. that's how you get the point across. otherwise you are just going to be hit back with blind rage.

    I take "I am Charlie" to mean "I stand with Charlie". Meaning that someone supports the magazine's right to publish. I don't think it is inappropriate given what happened, but I don't think it necessarily means someone is defending the content. I'm not big on monickers though so it is not a phrase I have used.

    Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.

    I agree that journalism not only should, but actually has a reponsibility to, push the envelope. but from what I've seen of what they've published, it just seems they are trying to just piss everybody off just for the sake of it.

    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




Categories