tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
It wasn't aimed at anyone defending anything here, but if it irritates some I'm glad.
Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France
- Thread starter Spymaster
- Start date
It wasn't aimed at anyone defending anything here, but if it irritates some I'm glad.
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
I defend a secular position. Just not the same of yours, which basically results in the reinstating of religion, cos for you capitalist alienation is not really a central issue. Back to philosophy we go, the most abstract and intellectual form of religion.
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
Where do you draw the line between ‘needless provocation’ and acceptable questioning? If any line does exist?
You need to be able to justify exactly WHY posting cartoons of a religious figure is an act of provocation in itself. Objectively speaking, it means fuck all as it’s just lines on a piece of paper arranged in a certain manner so you can’t say objectively that it is provocative.
Now that we have that out of the way let’s get to subjective provocation. Is it subjectively provocative? Yes, it most certainly is.
Does that mean it is unacceptable to show those images at any time or any stage to any single person? I don’t think you can make that argument because those images have already been made, they are part of our cultural, artistic and social history and they won’t or can’t be made to go away.
So that leads us into the next question; is it acceptable to show those images to anyone and everyone? I don’t think you can make the argument that you can because there are those who might view those images as offensive (for whatever reasons they may have, religious or otherwise).
So now we have to established that we shouldn’t ignore these cartoons, or that we should show them to anyone, where do we go from here?
I’m a teacher myself so I’ll go through my work thought processes with this one with Samuel Paty in my mind:
1) I read the curriculum and scheme of work where it mentions freedom of expression
2) Ok so I will look at relevant material that might be useful for me to explore this area
3) The Charlie Hebdo attack is a good, French example that I could use to generate a debate
4) I understand that there may be students who might find the images offensive so I will give them an opportunity not to participate in the lesson
4) I will use this example and build a debate around it, allowing those who didn’t see the images a chance to put forward their beliefs and ideas
I’m fairly sure that Samuel Paty followed a similar thought process doing that lesson. Because it makes sense. There is absolutely ZERO, and I mean ZERO reasons why you should question his methods and what he was trying to achieve through this lesson.
At the end of the day, this poor guy got his fucking head cut off....horrific! Not only for himself having to experience that, but also his family and close friends who have to come to terms that the person they loved, lived his last moments having his fucking head cut off.
Yet there’s people on here questioning his teaching? Wind your fucking neck in lad and that goes for everyone else on this thread making an argument over this.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sounds clever. But it's just a word salad, really.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is fucked up, you know. Seriously fucked up. A teacher needs to be tactful. A satirist does not. You blame the CH cartoonists for their own murder. You really do here - needless provocation. Don't be rude about people's religion - they might murder you, and you know, it's kind of understandable, isn't it, that they should react violently when you're rude about stuff they believe in.
There was loads of this shit on the original CH thread, dancing around the idea that they deserved what they got because they took the piss. But everything that goes for M Paty also goes for CH. In his role as a teacher, he did nothing wrong. In their role as cartoonists, they did nothing wrong. But you would abandon them. Their provocation was needless, they brought the consequences on themselves. Blasphemy is not just for believers. It is for everyone.
ETA: And before anyone jumps in about oppressed minorities, a bit of context is needed here. CH is a relatively low-circulation magazine with an overwhelmingly left-wing readership. It isn't obsessed with Islam. Have a look at its past issues over the years. It devotes more of its time to the National Front and anti-immigrant hypocrisy and the Catholic Church. The only reason their cartoons became an issue is because Islamist shitstirrers made them an issue. And why is that, really. Is it the depiction of Muhammad, or is it the depiction of Islamists?
That isn't an anti-Islam cartoon. It does needlessly provoke murdering Islamists who like cutting off people's fucking heads, though.
Ironic, Spy, given your previously uncompromising attitude towards murdering Islamists who like cutting off people's fucking heads. What's changed?
Last edited:
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Why? Because it wasn't about you?
I just think you’re trying to sound clever, and also in this regard, not making any point nor positing any question
not your fucking chinos anyway, pal
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
not at all. if for whatever reason you could be convinced that islam was both true and its fundamentalist variant was the way to read the text, you would be humming a different tune. you are half way there. you will claim the quran is made up also claim it is seen as eternal. which one is it? make up yer mind. Either the quran is fictitious and people have always interpreted according to their time period, material conditions and desires, or the quran is eternal, in which case it is either created or not - this was a debate in islamic theology in 9th century but for the purposes of this argument let's say it is divine. You can't say I think the quran is made up yet I will impute ideological divinity to those believing in it. That's just being noncommittal and not penetrating to the essence of things. And there is no reason for anyone to countenance that opinion.
Again, I'm not picking a fight here. I'm merely asking why you focus on imams and community leaders, as if any misogyny or homophobia in muslims can directly be tied to their religion, and not the prevailing power structures in society. Seen as you afford that to non-muslims.
All you do is grandstand and think banging on the religious drum gets you somewhere, except it only makes you receptive to new humanist readers, who were cliche in 2009.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Do you think it’s unwise/unnecessary for people to join the police?
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
and again i ask what solidarity we're even talking about. screaming the s word doesn't amount to anything. amplifying voices do not matter if those voices are confined to matters of religion, which is exactly what happened with many ex-muslims from 2008-13 who gravitated to the right. if you aren't interested in getting involved with muslim peoples daily struggles then forget the secular/liberal muslims stuff. Pointless. That secular society statement dlr quoted makes sense only within a broader framework, which I gather is what he was intending. The idea that ex-muslims aren't prime recruiting ground for the angloamerican right is just bizarre. Live and walk your secularism, don't talk it.
I can't say I agree with belboid either though. The question was never about offence. it was always about neglect, something the left is very good at. The SWP/respect turn was seen as a joke by many muslims, even practicing ones. why was that? it wasn't because of a culture clash was it!
I can't say I agree with belboid either though. The question was never about offence. it was always about neglect, something the left is very good at. The SWP/respect turn was seen as a joke by many muslims, even practicing ones. why was that? it wasn't because of a culture clash was it!
Last edited:
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
sit down in front of a python editor writing an algorithm to compute the views of all imams (no matter how outlandish or heterodox) because of islam's decentralisation. Am I the only one to notice how ridiculous this sounds? Output to a spreadsheet naturally. Might take you 70 years, but after all we will finally be able to statistically estimate the average imams and community elders to target. those 70 years in the meantime do not matter a jot.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
So you chose one cartoon that’s clearly anti-fundamentalist rather than any of those that are far more dubious. What about the ones that Jay posted earlier in the thread?ETA: And before anyone jumps in about oppressed minorities, a bit of context is needed here. CH is a relatively low-circulation magazine with an overwhelmingly left-wing readership. It isn't obsessed with Islam. Have a look at its past issues over the years. It devotes more of its time to the National Front and anti-immigrant hypocrisy and the Catholic Church. The only reason their cartoons became an issue is because Islamist shitstirrers made them an issue. And why is that, really. Is it the depiction of Muhammad, or is it the depiction of Islamists?
That isn't an anti-Islam cartoon. It does needlessly provoke murdering Islamists who like cutting off people's fucking heads, though.
Ironic, Spy, given your previously uncompromising attitude towards murdering Islamists who like cutting off people's fucking heads. What's changed?
And nothing’s changed with regards to my attitude to fundamentalist murderers. Happy to see them all bombed. That doesn’t mean I think it’s fine to needlessly insult everyone of religion.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
There's no need to do this as DARPA have it in hand
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
And not just people
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Back in the day, the left (excluding those who still argued "homosexuality is a bourgeois deviation") were all over this Whitehouse v Lemon - Wikipedia And Whitehouse only took the publication to court.
I liked it when blasphemy was generally considered a good thing on the left.
Edit: Oh, and before anyon says its different because CH were being racist, it's been pretty much established they weren't. Edgy and a bit shit, yes, but not actually racist.
I liked it when blasphemy was generally considered a good thing on the left.
Edit: Oh, and before anyon says its different because CH were being racist, it's been pretty much established they weren't. Edgy and a bit shit, yes, but not actually racist.
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
Can't fault your logic there.
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
Yeh, but there is no real left now. this is where the discussion is going wrong. You just have liberals, and left wing careerists. Mostly. So again I ask what solidarity is going to be offered here. As for blasphemy I'll defecate on a churchill statue if british 'progressives' (because everyone else is a regressive naturally) will show up at my hearing to defend my freedom to defame national icons.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Who determines whether or not something is an insult, or whether or not it is needless, and how? It's a dangerous road to go down. Because they're are some who are insulted by, say, two men kissing in public - something that's not strictly 'necessary'.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Do you think that there are no lines whatsoever to be drawn then? There's nuance to be had isn't there? Whilst I might think that two guys kissing in public is fine I might also believe that The Love That Dares To Speak It's Name is over the top. Apart from the fact that it's one of the shittest poems ever written do you think it could fairly universally be thought to be needlesly insulting to Christians? Do you think that an image of Mohammed with his arse in the air, bollocks dangling, and penis dripping, could reasonablyy said to be insulting to most Muslims?
Last edited:
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Back in the day it was the right who claimed that about the "Black and White Minstrels" and gollywogs jamjars.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The people who cut off other people's heads, that's who.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, I think both of those things are likely to insult many of the followers of the respective religions (and probably some non-believers).
Please would you have a go at answering the questions, though?
'Who determines whether or not something is an insult, or whether or not it is needless, and how?'
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
I raised this point about 40 pages ago, as have others. I think we’ve had our answer. There will be no solidarity offered to the murdered worker. In fact, there are questions to be asked about whether he theoretically deserves any anyway. Instead, the debate is about the best way to build links and solidarity with an imagined homogeneous group.
This thread is stinking
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Do you think that it's unnecessary or needless to join the police force?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What's this killer point now?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Do you think it's necessary to do that?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I'm asking you a question. Or is it just you who can do that?
Similar threads
