Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[Pickman's model]

I think anyone fucked up enough to hack someones head off is probably looking for a victim. If it wasn't this teacher it would have been someone else who didn't agree with his views.

Doesn't narrow it down

 

[Pickman's model]

How much of that is just the French state trying to be seen to be doing something?

The famous "round up the usual suspects"

 

[Spymaster]

Giving an example isn't the same as being able to define something.

Essentially, your position boils down to the idea that people should have the freedom to say stuff you agree with, and if they get killed for saying something you and others find 'needlessly provocative' (something you can't define), that's to be expected (albeit you don't support it).

What a load of rubbish. I've defined needlessly provocative and given you what I believe is an example of it. It's being more antagonistic than is required to make one's point, for the sake of it. You avoided answering my question too. Is a poem about a Roman centurion fellating the dead body of Jesus Christ needlessly provocative towards Christians? And again, why is it to be expected if someone gets killed doing it? Is it to be expected if a policeman gets killed doing his job?

 

[Idris2002]

The famous "round up the usual suspects"

But without the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is a poem about a Roman centurion fellating the dead body of Jesus Christ needlessly provocative towards Christians?

I'll answer that if you like.

No.

One of the things you are missing/conflating here is context.

To state that any work of art is needlessly provocative in and of itself is to take sides in any debate between the ideas of the artwork and the ideas it is lampooning/spoofing/insulting. It is, in this case, to give some legitimacy to the concept of 'blasphemy'.

That doesn't mean showing that work in all places, to all people, all of the time is always ok. That's a different argument.

 

[Pickman's model]

But without the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

sadly so

 

[Spymaster]

To state that any work of art is needlessly provocative in and of itself is to take sides in any debate between the ideas of the artwork and the ideas it is lampooning/spoofing/insulting. It is, in this case, to give some legitimacy to the concept of 'blasphemy'.

So are you saying that TLTDNSIN was lampooning blasphemy?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So are you saying that TLTDNSIN was lampooning blasphemy?

I would say that its author probably knew full well that some people would think it blasphemous. I don't necessarily feel the need to say much more than that.

 

[Athos]

What a load of rubbish. I've defined needlessly provocative and given you what I believe is an example of it. It's being more antagonistic than is required to make one's point, for the sake of it. You avoided answering my question too. Is a poem about a Roman centurion fellating the dead body of Jesus Christ needlessly provocative towards Christians? And again, why is it to be expected if someone gets killed doing it? Is it to be expected if a policeman gets killed doing his job?

As a society, how do we decide whether or not something is needless, and how? Can you really not see the dangers and difficulties of basing that on millions of differing and subjective opinions? And why, practically, it might be better to have the certainty of position that protects free speech, even if that means protecting needlessly offensive speech? Would you rather in a society that prioritises your freedoms over others' 'right' not to be offended (accepting the quid pro quo that people can say things that offend you), or vice versa?

 

[Spymaster]

I would say that its author probably knew full well that some people would think it blasphemous.

Well of course he did unless he was a complete idiot but do you think that his intention was to send-up the concept? If so do you think it was unwise to make his point that way or could there have been better ways to do it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well of course he did unless he was a complete idiot but do you think that his intention was to send-up the concept? If so do you think it was unwise to make his point that way or could there have been better ways to do it?

Unwise? No, not necessarily.

Like 'needlessly', that's a very strange word to use in this context.

 

[Athos]

Well of course he did unless he was a complete idiot but do you think that his intention was to send-up the concept? If so do you think it was unwise to make his point that way or could there have been better ways to do it?

His point was to produce exactly that piece of art. He couldn't have made it any other - let alone 'better' - way. So, unless you think art is a 'needless' activity, he wasn't needlessly causing offence. I accept that others might think he was. So then what?

 

[Spymaster]

As a society, how do we decide whether or not something is needless, and how? Can you really not see the dangers and difficulties of basing that on millions of differing and subjective opinions? And why, practically, it might be better to have the certainty of position that protects free speech, even if that means protecting needlessly offensive speech?

Again, nobody is suggesting this stuff be banned. Just that it can be unwise to exercise certain freedoms in certain situations.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Again, nobody is suggesting this stuff be banned. Just that it can be unwise to exercise certain freedoms in certain situations.

By certain situations, do you mean here 'poetry'?

you're just digging a hole here, you know.

 

[Spymaster]

By certain situations, do you mean here 'poetry'?

I was thinking more along the lines of publishing cartoons of Mohammed bent over with his arse cheeks spread, bollocks dangling and dick dripping, or standing in a Brixton park shouting "send all foreign cunts home" after a race riot.

you're just digging a hole here, you know.

You keep saying this but declining to bury me in it. You've yet to answer the ridiculous question about Keith Palmer too.

 

[Athos]

Again, nobody is suggesting this stuff be banned. Just that it can be unwise to exercise certain freedoms in certain situations.

Spymaster So you accept that Paty was - and was right to have been - free to show that material, albeit you question his wisdom in doing so?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I was thinking more along the lines of publishing cartoons of Mohammed bent over with his arse cheeks spread, bollocks dangling and dick dripping, or standing in a Brixton park shouting "send all foreign cunts home!" after a race riot.

So why were you asking about the poem then? Strange sidetrack if you're not going to use it as your example.

The cartoon of Mo, fine. No problem with it. Standing in Brixton park being abusive, not fine.

This stuff's quite easy once you get the hang of it.

 

[Spymaster]

The cartoon of Mo, fine.

Why is it fine?

Standing in Brixton park being abusive, not fine.

"Send all foreigners home". Is that abusive?

You think someone should have a right to say it, but it wouldn't be fine to exercise that right, or you don't think they should have the right to say it at all?

And are you going to have a go at the Keith Palmer question?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I really need to explain this? Freedom of expression, artistic freedom, doesn't mean the freedom to shout Fire in a cinema or to hurl abuse at random strangers. You know this.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As for Keith Palmer, I'm at a loss as to what you think I might think about him. Poor bloke! Brave bloke.

I don't really give a toss that some racist twat took a leak next to the memorial to him, mind you. I don't go in for frothing about that kind of thing. It was very amusing that he was arrested, but that is only because he was a racist twat.

 

[Spymaster]

I really need to explain this? Freedom of expression, artistic freedom, doesn't mean the freedom to shout Fire in a cinema or to hurl abuse at random strangers.

Give over!

You're defending the above cartoons on the basis of artistic expression?

Why is it not ok for someone to voice his opinion that black and Asian people should go home? That's absolutely freedom of speech wherever he does it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Give over!

You're defending the above cartoons on the basis of artistic expression?

Why is it not ok for someone to voice his opinion that black and Asian people should go home? That's absolutely freedom of speech wherever he does it?

To answer your first question, yes.

your second one is silly and you know it. Already asked and answered.

 

[Spymaster]

As for Keith Palmer, I'm at a loss as to what you think I might think about him. Poor bloke! Brave bloke.

That's disingenuous and you know it.

Why do you insist that I am blaming the Hebdo crew's murder on them, yet that you're not blaming Palmers death on him for joining the police force?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's disingenuous and you know it.

Why do you insist that I am blaming the Hebdo crew's murder on them, yet that you're not blaming Palmers death on him for joininjg the police force?

I'll give you a different analogy. Jacob Rees-Mogg criticising the behaviour of the people who died in the Grenfell Tower fire.

 

[Spymaster]

your second one is silly and you know it. Already asked and answered.

Nonsense. You're just picking and choosing which rights and freedoms people should have according to your own politics. You don't like religion so it's ok to insult and provoke religionists but you're anti-racist so racially intolerant speech or provocation is not on.

 

[Spymaster]

I'll give you a different analogy. Jacob Rees-Mogg criticising the behaviour of the people who died in the Grenfell Tower fire.

Totally out of order. Massive cunt. Shouldn't have said it.

You're still avoiding the Keith Palmer question and I'm not going to let it go.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nonsense. You're just picking and choosing which rights and freedoms people should have according to your own politics. You don't like religion so it's ok to insult and provoke religionists but you're anti-racist so racially intolerant speech or provocation is not on.

You haven't given two equivalent scenarios. As you well know.

A religious equivalent to someone shouting racist abuse in the street in Brixton would be someone walking into a Mosque in the middle of Friday prayers to shout a load of anti-Islam stuff at the worshipers. Believe it or not, I wouldn't be defending someone's right to do that.

 

[Spymaster]

You haven't given two equivalent scenarios. As you well know.

A religious equivalent to someone shouting racist abuse in the street in Brixton would be someone walking into a Mosque in the middle of Friday prayers to shout a load of anti-Islam stuff at the worshipers. Believe it or not, I wouldn't be defending someone's right to do that.

Ok. So you would defend someone's right to shout racist bollocks somewhere else, say Hyde Park?

Anyway, Keith Palmer. What do you reckon?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok. So you would defend someone's right to shout racist bollocks somewhere else, say Hyde Park?

Anyway, Keith Palmer. What do you reckon?

Should the speakers at Speaker's Corner be censored? Is that your question? I would say generally no, but then the crowd are also free to shout back!

I still have no idea what question you're asking about Keith Palmer. Bloke got caught up in a terrorist attack, did his best to save lives, lost his own life. What else is there to say?

In relation to Samuel Paty, I assume you've read the stuff about the campaign against him and how the hatred was whipped up. You might like to focus a little more attention on that and what it means rather than zeroing in on his lesson plans.

 

[Spymaster]

Should the speakers at Speaker's Corner be censored? Is that your question?

I'm examining where your limits on freedom of speech/expression are. I think we've established that you don't believe in absolute freedom of expression and believe that there are limits. The question is where do you set the boundaries.

I still have no idea what question you're asking about Keith Palmer. Bloke got caught up in a terrorist attack, did his best to save lives, lost his own life. What else is there to say?

You've repeatedly accused me and others of blaming the Hebdo guys for their murders and equated them not doing what they did with appeasement of fundamentalism. I know that you disagree with, and are critical of, people becoming police officers so do you blame Keith Palmer for his murder? After all if he hadn't joined the police he wouldn't have been killed.