Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MADem

(135,425 posts)
62. Well, obviously not wholesale slaughter.
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:13 PM
Jan 2015

However, "lumping" isn't appropriate either.

I'm seeing a lot of "those people" type posts, and I'm rather sickened by the broad brushing, too. I always thought "progressives" were better at NUANCE--after all, they are supposed to have a forward-looking point of view. Unfortunately, I'm finding out that a few self-styled progressives are in actual fact xenophobes, and I find that troubling.

If people want to see the images, they're out there--Google is everyone's friend. Perhaps people don't realize that a lot of the images aren't just hateful conceptually, it's not just about a "draw Mohamet" thing, but they're also pornographic (if a cartoon can be pornographic). I don't like looking at images of butt-nekkid bozos, no matter who is depicted, and even if they do have a gold star over their cartoon bunghole. A lot of the images just aren't "family friendly" and newspapers do have to appeal to a wide swathe within a "standards and practices" framework.

I will say this horrible event brought out the worst in a few people--and I'm not just talking about the shitheads who committed the heinous crime, either.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

More speech. Including derision and ridicule when appropriate (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #1
DU locks and hides speech all the time RobertEarl Jan 2015 #8
DU is a private website, not a government REP Jan 2015 #9
So we can put you down as no problem with limiting speech? RobertEarl Jan 2015 #21
We can put me down as knowing what a private website is REP Jan 2015 #25
Newspapers and TV news programs aren't government run in USA either. MADem Jan 2015 #67
Nope. Was your OP referring to hate speech on DU? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #13
Interesting... whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #15
Wow. Why are people having so much trouble with this? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #24
So you wouldn't advocate censoring whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #33
There's a big wide world out there outside of DU. (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #41
You didn't answer if you find any censorship of hate speech (outside DU) acceptable whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #49
I agree with NuclearDem Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #59
You wrote: RobertEarl Jan 2015 #17
More speech outside the confines of private websites and forums, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #29
Are you clear yet? RobertEarl Jan 2015 #42
You're right. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #45
Right you are RobertEarl Jan 2015 #48
No, it doesn't. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #53
No it is not--Locking and Hiding are forms of speech--not censorship MADem Jan 2015 #69
Last I checked, Skinner and MIRT didn't have the power to fine you or throw you in prison. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #32
Yeah RobertEarl Jan 2015 #37
Bingo. nt cwydro Jan 2015 #63
The answer is always MORE SPEECH REP Jan 2015 #2
The cartoons were really hateful. I hardly think we need more of that shit. CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #6
So, should we have denounced the Zombie Nativity scene that included Zombie Baby Jesus? geek tragedy Jan 2015 #7
You can call it hate speech, but that won't make it into hate speech REP Jan 2015 #14
Leering, grotesque caricatures engaged in lewd acts CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #30
speech is not allowed on a 'do we need that' basis geek tragedy Jan 2015 #35
I don't want to restrict free speech CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #58
Neither one of us gets to decide that REP Jan 2015 #47
I'm not trying to decide for them CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #51
Who's this "we"? REP Jan 2015 #57
And I clearly wasn't trying to speak for you CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #65
Impiety towards your deity is irreverence, not hate speech REP Jan 2015 #3
And what is "impiety" to religions not yours, including gross sexual references? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #4
How in the fuck would any person be able to know all the things that might be 'impious' to some Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #16
Why do you not ask the fellow who raised the question, why hound me with gratuitous vulgarity? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #20
Still impiety. REP Jan 2015 #19
One mans impiety is another man's hate. philosslayer Jan 2015 #26
Wrong. Impiety is directed at a set of beliefs. Hate is directed at people. Coventina Jan 2015 #31
Now your sophomoric attempts have been exposed, you're trying to deem blasphemy against geek tragedy Jan 2015 #34
You don't get to define it, either REP Jan 2015 #39
blasphemy is not hate speech. learn the difference. geek tragedy Jan 2015 #5
This, a billion times. REP Jan 2015 #22
Can we do so to the Jewish religion? RobertEarl Jan 2015 #28
Judaism REP Jan 2015 #36
A Family Guy episode this past XMAS portrayed Jesus as a player... Drunken Irishman Jan 2015 #66
We can do so to any religion. But you instantly went after the believers in the religion not the Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #38
What is the answer to all of the above seveneyes Jan 2015 #10
More speech. First you have to make a case that mockery and derision of a religion is 'hate speech' Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #11
As an atheist, my life is blasphemous. MineralMan Jan 2015 #12
Can we make fun of atheists? RobertEarl Jan 2015 #27
Sure, as far as I am concerned. MineralMan Jan 2015 #40
Don't take it personal RobertEarl Jan 2015 #43
Life of Brian is also hate speech. Are atheist billboards hate speech? alphafemale Jan 2015 #18
No, it wasn't CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #44
Is this hate speech? alphafemale Jan 2015 #50
No CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #55
It was to portray the most extremist, violent Muslims in a demeaning manner. alphafemale Jan 2015 #60
Life of Brian is not hate speech. egduj Jan 2015 #71
I don't thing Life of Brian is hate speech. But some do. alphafemale Jan 2015 #72
Blasphemy is a victimless crime. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #23
I don't see how this changes anything LittleBlue Jan 2015 #46
I think yopu need to learn what hate speech is. HERVEPA Jan 2015 #52
Mohammed was a mentally ill pedophile. <-- That's not hate speech. Xithras Jan 2015 #54
He satirized a lot more than Islam TexasMommaWithAHat Jan 2015 #56
Charlie did not engage in hate speech. I challenge your precept on point Jan 2015 #61
Well, obviously not wholesale slaughter. MADem Jan 2015 #62
One thing that is not a proper response is victim blaming (nt) LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #64
Speech restrictionists are far more dangerous than those who draw pictures of fictional characters tritsofme Jan 2015 #68
Charlie Hebdo is a hate speech rag. egduj Jan 2015 #70
Define "hate speech". Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #73
One might imagine your augment against Volatire is absurd and lacks rational thought. I certainly LanternWaste Jan 2015 #74
Criticism and ridicule are equivalent to hate speech?? prayin4rain Jan 2015 #75
I disagree with you, Hebdo did NOT engage in hate speech- political/ religious cartoons are NOT hate Sunlei Jan 2015 #76
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What is the proper respon...»Reply #62