everyone knows Burchill is a shit, and we've already read all this stuff. We could all perform how awful we think she is again, or talk about something more interesting. So we've gone for that instead.So yeah, if anyone actually wants to remind themselves what this is all about, Julie Burchill moving beyond the controversialist into nasty, vicious racist cunt, here's a link which contains a lot of what she said (it's from her solicitors and talks about the judgement and apology)
Julie Burchill to pay substantial damages & public apology to Ash Sarkar in defamation/harassment case
Blog Page - News Sectionwww.rllaw.co.uk
Or carry on talking about giving consent to angels, whatever.
Julie Burchill forced to apologise for twitter comments , and pay out a fat wedge .
- Thread starter marty21
- Start date
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Nice of you to speak for everybody. Just for a change like.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I cussed the Bible. You didn’t like it. That’s unfortunate, but it wasn’t directed at you, or indeed anyone.
There is no way of going through life without finding some things other people say offensive. And it’s dangerous to try and insist it is possible.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It’s not a cop out, but only cos it’s bollocks instead. Invoking this nonsense (a la Burchill and others who decry cancel culture) that someone had said one shouldn’t ever criticise religious figures. You just made that up.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
This bit is puzzling: “although it was not my intention, I accept that my statements were defamatory of Ms Sarkar and caused her very substantial distress.”So yeah, if anyone actually wants to remind themselves what this is all about, Julie Burchill moving beyond the controversialist into nasty, vicious racist cunt, here's a link which contains a lot of what she said (it's from her solicitors and talks about the judgement and apology)
Julie Burchill to pay substantial damages & public apology to Ash Sarkar in defamation/harassment case
Blog Page - News Section
Or carry on talking about giving consent to angels, whatever.
"was not my intention"? Fucking strange statement.
Humberto
Well-Known Member
Attacking the very basis of a religion/s which has endured so long and is so much a part of people's identities seems the wrong way to go about helping ourselves or anyone else. Church leaders like to talk about inter-faith communication and rapprochement. I'd say that ought to cut both ways with atheists too. Burchill's type are the problem. Just as sharp-suited televangelists manipulate and condemn she is retrograde, xenophobic.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
You’ve made up several things about me already. You’ve literally said I said things I did not say.
I am not decrying “cancel culture”. I’m drawing a distinction between on the one hand being bigoted or racist and on the other hand criticising the content or impact of a philosophy. They are two completely different things.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
But you definitely did make up the fact that you were responding to a supposedly stated sentiment that one shouldn’t ever criticise religious figures.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Nope. Look back through the thread.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Some church leaders do that. Others don't. Some come together with other religions to attack a perceived common enemy, secularism.
I have a bit of a different take on this from danny. I think attacking the very basis of a religion is the best way to criticise it. Jesus was the son of god and died for our sins. No he didn't. Muhammad is a prophet. No he isn't.
And the leaders of organised religions of various stripes can mostly fuck the fuck off. Ultimately they are after power and control.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I have read it. You were being childish and are now being defensive.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I mean, I’m regretting responding to it now, because there were other things I’d rather have spent my evening doing, and I’ve offended people I didn’t want to offend. But I was responding directly to a story LBJ posted.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
See, how is one supposed to respond to false accusations? Then when I do respond, that turns out to be a personality flaw too.
Yes, I’m often childish, I can be patronising, I’m opinionated, I’m sometimes wrong. But “defensive”? What the fuck am I supposed to do with that information?
Let’s leave it at this: Burchill’s a prick, God’s a wanker, I’m offensive, and I’m off to watch Spiral.
Humberto
Well-Known Member
We could be saying the same things hundreds of years into the future, if we were still around. Religion may well endure as long as humanity does, as will the cuntish end of humanity's spectrum.
Oh get over yourself. I wouldn’t say to my Pakistani neighbour that she worshipped a paedophile, I wouldn’t jeer at a Sikh man for wearing a turban, and I wouldn’t say God raped Mary. You come on to a thread about this very issue, and do the very same thing Birchall did. And your defence is the same: I have a right to be offensive. It’s arrogant. I’m disappointed. I’ll leave it too.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Danny didn't do anything like the examples you give. He posted on here, aiming the comment at nobody in particular.
This is exactly the kind of special pleading for religion that I was objecting to at the start when linking to that blasphemy case. Believe what you want, but you don't have a right not to have the things you believe in questioned or spoken about in terms you don't approve of.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
The Reunion - The Covid-19 ward - BBC Sounds
Michael Rosen and the medical staff who cared for him during his battle with coronavirus.
www.bbc.co.uk
hitmouse
so defeated, thinks it's funny
But the point I keep getting stuck on is - is there any evidence that Ash Sarkar treats these stories as gospel? Cos I'm not an Ash Sarkar-ologist or anything, but I've not seen any evidence that she does, and so it seems weird that we keep coming back to like "criticisms that might be appropriate to level at a fundamentalist Muslim who defends that passage/myth" in the context of a discussion about someone who, going by the available evidence, is not a fundamentalist Muslim who etc etc. I think it's pretty important to resist that slippage.
I can't believe I'm going to be this much of a tediously predictable Marxist dick, but that's the question, isn't it, or at least one of them - what is the actual basis of religion?
The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion...
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I hope not, because worshipping Mohammed is a blasphemy in Islam.
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
Technically no, her age is not part of the christian tradition, but her rape unequivocally is, otherwise its impossible to have a doctrine of immaculate conception.
In that sense, Aisha is far less central to the islamic traditions as people on here would like to claim. She is universally despised and not to be exemplarised according to the shia tradition, and that goes for her father, Abu Bakr.
In that sense the history is important, because if Muhammad is insan al-kamal - then the fact that the islamic tradition is full of contradicting hearsay narritives (hadith) illustrates that the important thing is how that tradition is interpreted in certain historical periods for what ends.
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
Neither is muhammad free from sin.
Treacle Toes
Time
Edie
I think they're trying to make up for worshiping the new and politically improved Jedward. It's unsettled the anarchist vibrations and equilibrium must be preserved, or something.
kittyP
Pluviophile
Walk into a bar?
ska invita
back on the other side
Burchill's new found publisher has links to Patriotic Alternative
Londoner’s Diary: ‘Far-Right link’ of Julie Burchill’s new publisher
Welcome back to the Londoner’s Diary. First up, we hear about the alleged far-right connections of Julie Burchill’s new publisher, Stirling Publishing. Later on singer-songwriter Imelda May recalls an ill-fated camping trip with her parents to Paris. Then in SW1A, Ed Balls reveals the boss he...www.standard.co.uk
Two days ago on March 14, Burchill posted on her Facebook page about her new publisher: “I’ve found someone who’s JUST LIKE ME - not only can I work with her, but have a lot of fun with her, and we know how much I like THAT.”
classic Burchill just like her indeedManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
Islam will crumble when the changes rought about by the high mobility of labour in former areas subject to empires of tribute completely extinguish the old revanchist consciousness. Already islamism has run out of ideas from the paramilitary to the bourgeoisdemocratic.
The mistake here is to view religion as an entirely pre-capitalist relic rather than being subsumed into capital's self-valourisation mechanisms. This is why overemphasising a purported humanism of capitalism is a wrongheaded impulse, which is of course what mainstream secularists end up doing.
The mistake here is to view religion as an entirely pre-capitalist relic rather than being subsumed into capital's self-valourisation mechanisms. This is why overemphasising a purported humanism of capitalism is a wrongheaded impulse, which is of course what mainstream secularists end up doing.
kittyP
Pluviophile
Yep same as my catholic schooling as well.
I think SheilaNaGig is right that myths and story telling are such an important part of being a human and I would hate us to lose them, but I also think that when dealing with something like Christianity, so may people literally take the Bible as gospel (pun kinda intended) and that shapes so much of the world still, including politics and therefore women's rights, attempting to reframe the narrative is kinda futile and I would rather say "yes these stories are important to a lot of people but they are just that, stories" than argue to the toss about whether Mary was raped or not.
I dunno if that makes sense or not as I am rambling a bit
The Immaculate Conception was the conception of Mary by her parents, which somehow happens without sin. Thus Mary is without sin and can be a vessel for Christ, who is also his own dad.
Yeah, I think it's fine and good to reframe and reclaim myths and stories and the like, but when those myths and stories have been used for millennia - and are still used today - to justify and enforce an unjust world, then I'm not really into it.Yep same as my catholic schooling as well.
I think SheilaNaGig is right that myths and story telling are such an important part of being a human and I would hate us to lose them, but I also think that when dealing with something like Christianity, so may people literally take the Bible as gospel (pun kinda intended) and that shapes so much of the world still, including politics and therefore women's rights, attempting to reframe the narrative is kinda futile and I would rather say "yes these stories are important to a lot of people but they are just that, stories" than argue to the toss about whether Mary was raped or not.
I dunno if that makes sense or not as I am rambling a bit
Similar threads
- Poll
