France Shoot-Out

[Hax]

That just sickens me...there is no congruention between the subject spoken to in the first: the curse of God be uponyou (pl.) oh worshipper (sg.) of the Cross. The word for worshipper, ‘abd, should be in the plural: ‘abîd. Freedom of expression should be extended to people that make this kind of mistake in God's holy language.

But I digress. What is absolutely horrifying to see is the lengths to which people go to -- despite everything that has happened -- to still blame Charlie Hebdo for all this. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "well when you wear skirts of that length, don't be surprised that you ended up raped". It's victim-blaming and it's horrific. To spin it into a pseudo-intellectual debate concerning the limitations of freedom of speech is pretty much just insulting. Personally, I'm getting tired of the people that try to take some kind of moral "high road" when it comes to these events, because we're not on the same wavelength.

To put it in different terms: we have all decided that in our respective societies (Dutch, French, English, German...etc) there should be the possibility for all people to express -- more-or-less without fear of repercussions -- our opinions freely. However, there is a serious problem when it comes to the reciprocity of this point of view: you feel that violent Islamists have the right to express their opinion. Violent Islamists feel that they have the right to express their opinion. So up unto that point everything's great. Express an opinion that is critical of this group of Islamists though, and you're risking your life.

Seeing the degree to which people on these forums go to slam Charlie Hebdo or French Republicanism is frankly just sickening. I can only speak for myself, but I have a huge respect to the history of satire in France, and the argument that the cartoons harm "the socio-economically marginalised group of French Muslims" is so incredibly daft that it just feels like trolling at one point -- especially when I see articles written by British journalists: maybe some of them are still feeling bad about the 100 year war. More seriously: I have no idea what feeds this kind of poorly-disguised anti-French sentiment.

To all those that say that radical Islamism -- yes, radical Islamism; not radical Islam -- is not a threat to Western society is fooling themselves. It's an incredibly naive thought that will only do harm. Does that mean that we should pre-emptively tone down criticis of a particular religion? That's insane. I have actually been positively surprised by the general response by and to the Muslim communities in Europe after the shooting, and I think it would be the same kind of insane to suddenly have this knee-jerk reaction to everything that has anything to do with their religion. If I were a Muslim, I'd be more insulted by the fact that everyone thinks that I'd literally explode at the very first perceived slight towards Muhammad. But maybe, that's why I'm not a Muslim.

I think that a lot of what's happening today with relation to violent Islamism has to do with the fact that it's a wounded animal, and although I'm not a hunter, I understand that they are the most dangerous -- but it can't go on much longer. So kill it with laughter, and vive la liberté​.

[Husar]

To all those that say that radical Islamism -- yes, radical Islamism; not radical Islam -- is not a threat to Western society is fooling themselves. It's an incredibly naive thought that will only do harm.

In what way exactly? Do you think ISIS could conquer us or that they wipe out our entire non-muslim populations using terror attacks or maybe that we're going to tear ourselves apart discussing it?

[Hax]

In what way exactly?

I'm glad you asked!

Do you think ISIS could conquer us

No.

that they wipe out our entire non-muslim populations using terror attacks

No. In your mind, terror attacks are only threatening when they could destroy entire populations or..? Don't you think that the attacks themselves are enough of a threat?

maybe that we're going to tear ourselves apart discussing it?

Mostly this though. Self-censorship would mean that the terrorists won, to use an expression

[Husar]

No. In your mind, terror attacks are only threatening when they could destroy entire populations or..? Don't you think that the attacks themselves are enough of a threat?

A threat to what? To my life? So far dying to a terror attack seems about as likely as getting hit by lightning, how afraid are you of lightnings? They are certainly a threat, but I see bigger threats to my life everywhere around me. They're only a threat to our way of life because we make them one by pretending we are scared for our lives.

Mostly this though. Self-censorship would mean that the terrorists won, to use an expression

Yes. I will also not deny that some groups of people may be in more danger than I am. My point is that we should go on, let the police deal with terrorist attacks using decent police work (they're actually not that bad at that sort of work usually, even without us spending millions on spyware for everyone) and take care of some issues that are more likely to kill us anytime soon and also rather preventable. The more money we let our governments spend on spyware, the more anti-terror laws we establish, the closer the terrorists get to having completely terrorized us, if that makes any sense.

[Montmorency]

The principles of free speech do not just concern state censorship - employers do not have the right to take away all the human rights of their employees upon signing a contract, and sacking somebody for using their right to free speech would almost certainly be unfair grounds for dismissal and indeed illegal. Free speech doesn't just give the government a negative role in not censoring things, it gives it a positive role in ensuring that other bodies do not take away peoples freedoms.

Not a chance. Anarcho-syndicalist fantasies are not the extant reality.

[Fragony]

In what way exactly? Do you think ISIS could conquer us or that they wipe out our entire non-muslim populations using terror attacks or maybe that we're going to tear ourselves apart discussing it?

They can't kill us but they can change us, cue, the cancelled pegida protests. Police can't/won't protecf peacefull protesters.

[Brenus]

“In what way exactly?” I think Europe/USA are a side-show, not the real battle-field. What ISIS and other Boko Haram are trying to achieve is the predominance over the Muslims World. Their leaders perfectly know they will not change Europe, but in killing in Paris they terrorise the Muslim populations. It is part of a global policy to subjugate the local populations, as the throwing the gays from high buildings. When time to normalise relationship with the West will come (if they win), they will happily hand-over all the “westerners” jihadists to their countries of origins, keeping some in reserve in case of need.
Each time n attack is launched on “West”, they increase their grip on the Muslim world. Look how the Wahhabis point of view is (even the clothing) spread around the Muslim World. Thanks to years of funding Mosques and making sure that the preachers teaching Islam are from their sect, the Saudis insured they are the leading power. However, as often, they were out-flanked by even more extremists.
It is a mob war for territories and markets.

[Fragony]

Not so sure about mosques, they are in general very cooperative with the police (at least here), and radicals are denied entry. Was curious what I would see, only saw old men and got a cup of tea that was way too sweet. But yeah it's the muslim population that have the most to fear for these guys and are the most in danger, they are terrified of them. As welcome as the inquisition.

[Gilrandir]

“Why, Putin admired Goebbels to the face of a bunch of Jews and it didn't move you to any righteous anger.” What Putin admired in Goebbels was the fact he knew how to create propaganda, if memory serves. Typical of you to try to mix-up things. Ooops, I just realise it is perhaps not intended…
You can say you admire Hitler for his political flair, his ability to use modern technology (first to use intensively airplanes to go from rally to rally,) but you can’t admire him for his racism and deny the Holocaust.

Can you admire his pictures? Or his vegetarianism? Can you call a think tank after Goebbels if you admire only his propaganda skills? It is way too arbitrary to draw a line between what you can and what you can't admire in a villain. And who is to draw the line?

“Has the court passed any verdict? No? Then he is still a suspect. Learn the rules of democracy.” , Learn rule of law: A dead person can’t be put on trial. Defending him/herself would be a problem… Perhaps turning tables…

"Guilty" is a verdict that can only be passed by a court. Thus, if a dead person can't be put on trial, he is equally can't be declared guilty or not guilty. Still less by you.

Yes, if you take money that is not yours, you can be fired, even if you didn’t mean harm, same as racist remark.

Taking money is intended or unintended theft, thus a crime, racist remark is not. If the latter was, the prisons would be full of such convicts.

“In effect we see that Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims incites violence against christians and the French all over the muslim world.” So your solution is not to blame the ones who burn and kill, but the one who are killed…

My solution is a fork: be nice to the people around or fortify your house.

Can I remind you, that, without the killing, no drawings would been published at that scale... Just saying.

Then comes more violence and more drawings in response, and then more drawings in response to the response... A vicious circle without any way out. Battling evil with evil. Meanwhile, to sum up what we currently have:
1. Violence is aimed at people who have NOTHING TO DO with Charlie Ebdo, unless sharing citizenship and/or confession.
2. Charlie Ebdo is reaping huge income.

“France which will result in loss of jobs in France, should the financial loss be recovered from the sky-rocketing revenues of the said publication?” Will Ukraine pay for the loss of jobs if Russia decides to call-off the deal for the war-ships that Holland decided to postpone the delivery of?

I was talking of a government which can try to redress the losses caused by indiscretions of ITS citizens. AFAIK, Ukraine is not a part of France yet, so Holland can have no legal and/or financial claim over its actions (if indeed Ukraine is to blame in suspending Mistral delivery; perhaps Holland can be blamed in short-sighted policy which amounted to delivering weapons to an aggressor).

I am just wondering how the victims of Stalin and Mao would feel about this statement. Considering the millions they killed.

Stalin and Mao were practising leaders who may be blamed in misusing the philosophical theory they tried to implement. The said theory sounded perfect: they wanted to build a communist paradise in which everyone got what he wanted and contributed freely to the common well-being. They just didn't care that to build it some millions of people must be sacrificed.

But I digress. What is absolutely horrifying to see is the lengths to which people go to -- despite everything that has happened -- to still blame Charlie Hebdo for all this. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "well when you wear skirts of that length, don't be surprised that you ended up raped".

Let me expand:
"well when in this neighborhood you wear skirts of that length and don't have a baseball bat in your purse, don't be surprised that you ended up raped"
That's what I meant.

I have actually been positively surprised by the general response by and to the Muslim communities in Europe after the shooting, and I think it would be the same kind of insane to suddenly have this knee-jerk reaction to everything that has anything to do with their religion. If I were a Muslim, I'd be more insulted by the fact that everyone thinks that I'd literally explode at the very first perceived slight towards Muhammad. But maybe, that's why I'm not a Muslim.

Perhaps, this is the opinion which is symptomatic to understanding the western approach i.e. incredulity at what has happened and is happening: I am not a Muslim, I don't understand why are you so overreacting. If I were a Muslim I wouldn't.
And I'm not on the staff of Charlie Ebdo, but if I were I would apologize to Muslims all over the world and stop poking the hyena with a stick.

[Viking]

In what way exactly? Do you think ISIS could conquer us or that they wipe out our entire non-muslim populations using terror attacks or maybe that we're going to tear ourselves apart discussing it?

They could certainly help radicalising a big part of the muslim population during harsh times; such as during prolonged economic collapse and mass-unemployment that follows. Create a little mini-Balkan for us.

And I'm not on the staff of Charlie Ebdo, but if I were I would apologize to Muslims all over the world and stop poking the hyena with a stick.

Hyenas don't have citizenship in the West for a reason. (well, several)

[Rhyfelwyr]

What is absolutely horrifying to see is the lengths to which people go to -- despite everything that has happened -- to still blame Charlie Hebdo for all this. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "well when you wear skirts of that length, don't be surprised that you ended up raped". It's victim-blaming and it's horrific. To spin it into a pseudo-intellectual debate concerning the limitations of freedom of speech is pretty much just insulting.

Nobody has said that Charlie Hebdo deserved what happened to them, or that they should be blamed for the attack. Not one person in this thread has ever said that, despite some people accusing others of it often enough.

And it is you who is conflating things, by confusing A) morally blaming victims for what happens to them (as is implied in your mini-skirt example - the unacceptable attitude in the past being that women who dressed provocatively deserved what happened to them), and B) suggesting that people take basic precautions to avoid attracting unwanted criminal attention, without placing responsibility for crimes on the victim.

For example, if a person has been burgled twice in a month because they leave their door unlocked and the front windows open, a policeman might suggest that they start locking the door and closing the windows, without in any way excusing the burglars or laying ultimate blame at the victims feet.

Personally, I'm getting tired of the people that try to take some kind of moral "high road" when it comes to these events, because we're not on the same wavelength.

This is a debate about morality - you believe that it is morally wrong to deny free speech, do you not?

Self-censorship would mean that the terrorists won, to use an expression

Similarly, abandoning our traditional Western laws on offensive material purely as a knee-jerk reaction to the terrorists also means that the terrorists win. Just because they are at one extreme doesn't mean we have to be at the other.

[Fragony]

I am with Hax. My own take, how can you expect any enlightement comming from muslims if political correctness will never alliow them to. Pretty unfair. Idiots will blame normal muslims for not speaking out (why should they really), and other idiots will keep relativating islam. Nice place to be if you only care about what's for dinner

[Gilrandir]

My own take, how can you expect any enlightement comming from muslims if political correctness will never alliow them to.

What Charlie Ebdo has been and is doing is anything but political correctness.

[Husar]

Nice place to be if you only care about what's for dinner

What else could be important in life?

[Hax]

(What's) for starters, what's for dessert.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What else could be important in life?

The love growing from a committed relationship between equals....and perhaps a good chianti.

[Fragony]

What Charlie Ebdo has been and is doing is anything but political correctness.

And I respect them because of that. I don't respect their new best friends.

[Brenus]

“Can you admire his pictures?” Yes.
“Can you call a think tank after Goebbels if you admire only his propaganda skills?” No.
“And who is to draw the line?” The law made by elected, representative Parliament, following a democratic constitution.

“Thus, if a dead person can't be put on trial, he is equally can't be declared guilty or not guilty. Still less by you.” Wrong. If a dead person was kill unlawfully, the person(s) who shoot will be prosecuted and put on trial. If not, the killing of the person was lawful, so the killed was guilty.

“thus a crime, racist remark is not.” Really? You don’t intent to be racist?

“If the latter was, the prisons would be full of such convicts.” Not really as Racists in France try (and mostly succeed) to hind it, as shown in the example of the mayor hiding his racism behind laicité. Le Pen family, especially the daughter is good at it as well.

“Violence is aimed at people who have NOTHING TO DO with Charlie Ebdo, unless sharing citizenship and/or confession.”: That shows the immense stupidity of the ones doing it, not the newspaper fault. It is very easy to stop violence, when you are the ones launching it. You just stop.

“Charlie Ebdo is reaping huge income”: Yeah, what piece of luck having their friends and collaborators killed…

“if indeed Ukraine is to blame in suspending Mistral delivery” More than Charlie Hedbo for having been killed by obscurantist religious Muslim fanatics. CH shelled no cities, and killed no one.

“And I'm not on the staff of Charlie Ebdo, but if I were I would apologize to Muslims all over” That why you will never be Charlie. Apologizing to the killers and the mob, bowing, grovelling to calm the barbarians (and this is an insult to barbarians to be compared to this lot)…
Hey, I’ve got an idea, why the 4 Jews’ families do not apologies to the Muslim mob as well? Well, without Jews, no antisemitism, so the Jews are guilty, no?

She is Charlie:
Latifa Ibn Ziaten is the mother of the Paratrooper Idris Ibn Ziaten, first victim of Mohamed Merah, coldly murdered aged 30 March 11, 2012 in Toulouse. Since then, Latifa Ibn Ziaten criss-crossed France, going to colleges and high schools, to advocate an islam of tolerance, say her attachment to the Republic and her pride for her son. Merah "killed him because he was military. He asked him to bow but my son remained standing. He had entered into the army to serve the Republic', she recently said.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The laws should consider A) the position of the person/institution and B) the public attitude towards them, as well as any sensitivities around customs, tradition etc.

Thinking about this for a while, what you said initially made no sense. But maybe this is a difference between how Americans and Britons (I don't actually know the plural for UK citizens, Britons seems too specific to Great Britain) view government positions. The position and the person holding that position are completely different entities (from my view). That's why I have no problem with anyone openly mocking the President, because they are mocking the person, not the individual. Are you coming from an approach that the Queen (aka the monarchy) and the woman who is called The Queen are effectively the same? Then I could understand your point about customs and sensitivity.

We'll probably get bogged down if we start debating particular examples. I just think it is wishful thinking to say that free speech is totally positive and that censorship can never have positive effects. Advocating for total free speech because you believe it is right in principle, and advocating for it because you believe that it is the best way to counter extreme/anti-social beliefs are two different positions, yet they often get blurred. I think many people who believe at heart in the former can sometimes lazily go along with the perceived wisdom of the latter, perhaps because of the human tendency towards idealism. I believe in free speech in principle, but I also think that censorship can be pretty effective in practice.

I can't disagree that censorship can be effective. But I really do disagree with the notion that censorship is effective towards moderating opinions in the public sphere. Censorship and the restriction of free speech is perfectly applicable and effective when regarding things like national security, when the flow of information needs to be restricted. However, I don't think you can say the same regarding the flow of opinions. I just think that you are conflating the two and that the limits on free speech need to be varied for the various types of speech there are.

Historically speaking at least, a desire for some forms of restriction have been held by the overwhelming majority. I think this still holds true today - finding a balance between majority wishes and individual rights is what liberal democracy is all about.

Historically speaking (until the mid-1800s), a desire for slavery has been held by the overwhelming majority. No, I am not being glib, I don't think we can use public opinion and masquerade it with the authority of history to give it credence. A liberal democracy is about majority wishes except when individual rights are infringed. There is no "balance" one is subservient to the other.

I would hardly say that censoring extreme or offensive material has anything to do with asking people not to by human. They can think and feel what they like, while occasionally behind restricted in their outward actions - that is part and parcel of living in human society!

Humans like sex, humans like violence, humans like to insult those they disagree with. Trying to eliminate representations of these things in society seems to be asking people to pretend as if we are not human. I find it part and parcel of living in human society to hear the neighbors in the apt next to me having loud sex. That's what humans do.

That depends on whether or not it would have an overall positive effect. I don't view the right to vote as some sort of natural right, I just see it as a generally nice thing to have and something that allows for good governance. If there were circumstances when it would be detrimental to society, then away with it!

But that is clearly immoral. I didn't peg you for a utilitarian Rhy. You are so cavalier about rights which people to this day suffer because the lack the ability to exercise it. This argument is the justification of so much oppression. Can't give women the vote, we would start to have politicians elected based on hormones!

Let society come to an consensus about what is acceptable. If they cannot, they must reach an agreement as best they can, and obey the law that upholds it. I know that a lot of things that pass for acceptable today would never have been tolerated by many of your founding fathers. They were a diverse bunch and upheld arrangements that you would think are incredibly oppressive - eg a number of state-level established churches, and the censorship and discrimination that went along with that. Yet it was deemed constitutional at the time.

Yes, but we nowadays consider that an error on their part, not simply justification that human rights are frivolous things.

[Husar]

That's why I have no problem with anyone openly mocking the President, because they are mocking the person, not the individual. Are you coming from an approach that the Queen (aka the monarchy) and the woman who is called The Queen are effectively the same? Then I could understand your point about customs and sensitivity.

Isn't every person an individual? Or did you mean to say position/office for either of those?
I often read how it's okay to criticize Obama as a person as long as one respects the office of the president or something like that.
But going even deeper with such distinctions would seem strange.

[Fragony]

“Can you admire his pictures?” Yes.
“Can you call a think tank after Goebbels if you admire only his propaganda skills?” No.
“And who is to draw the line?” The law made by elected, representative Parliament, following a democratic constitution.

“Thus, if a dead person can't be put on trial, he is equally can't be declared guilty or not guilty. Still less by you.” Wrong. If a dead person was kill unlawfully, the person(s) who shoot will be prosecuted and put on trial. If not, the killing of the person was lawful, so the killed was guilty.

“thus a crime, racist remark is not.” Really? You don’t intent to be racist?

“If the latter was, the prisons would be full of such convicts.” Not really as Racists in France try (and mostly succeed) to hind it, as shown in the example of the mayor hiding his racism behind laicité. Le Pen family, especially the daughter is good at it as well.

“Violence is aimed at people who have NOTHING TO DO with Charlie Ebdo, unless sharing citizenship and/or confession.”: That shows the immense stupidity of the ones doing it, not the newspaper fault. It is very easy to stop violence, when you are the ones launching it. You just stop.

“Charlie Ebdo is reaping huge income”: Yeah, what piece of luck having their friends and collaborators killed…

“if indeed Ukraine is to blame in suspending Mistral delivery” More than Charlie Hedbo for having been killed by obscurantist religious Muslim fanatics. CH shelled no cities, and killed no one.

“And I'm not on the staff of Charlie Ebdo, but if I were I would apologize to Muslims all over” That why you will never be Charlie. Apologizing to the killers and the mob, bowing, grovelling to calm the barbarians (and this is an insult to barbarians to be compared to this lot)…
Hey, I’ve got an idea, why the 4 Jews’ families do not apologies to the Muslim mob as well? Well, without Jews, no antisemitism, so the Jews are guilty, no?

She is Charlie:
Latifa Ibn Ziaten is the mother of the Paratrooper Idris Ibn Ziaten, first victim of Mohamed Merah, coldly murdered aged 30 March 11, 2012 in Toulouse. Since then, Latifa Ibn Ziaten criss-crossed France, going to colleges and high schools, to advocate an islam of tolerance, say her attachment to the Republic and her pride for her son. Merah "killed him because he was military. He asked him to bow but my son remained standing. He had entered into the army to serve the Republic', she recently said.

I like the way you think. Je suis Charlie? No your not. Neither am I. It disgusts me how people are hijacking this nasty affair.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Isn't every person an individual? Or did you mean to say position/office for either of those?
I often read how it's okay to criticize Obama as a person as long as one respects the office of the president or something like that.
But going even deeper with such distinctions would seem strange.

Yeah I meant to say position not individual. Sometimes in the middle of writing x or y I will type x and then think I just typed y, so then I type x again.

[Fragony]

For consideration, not the best of translation but I'll try. 'You are importing the worst we have to offer, I am saving to go back to Marroco, everything I left Marroco for I have to look at here'

ouch.

[Gilrandir]

“Can you admire his pictures?” Yes.
“Can you call a think tank after Goebbels if you admire only his propaganda skills?” No.

So I see that you took upon himself the right to decide what others can or can't like and do. In what way is it better than censorship?

“And who is to draw the line?” The law made by elected, representative Parliament, following a democratic constitution.

I would like you to state the law which says that you can name a drawing school after Hitler (because you admire him as a painter) or a vegetarian club after him (for the well-known reasons), but you can't call a think tank after Goebbels.

“Thus, if a dead person can't be put on trial, he is equally can't be declared guilty or not guilty. Still less by you.” Wrong. If a dead person was kill unlawfully, the person(s) who shoot will be prosecuted and put on trial. If not, the killing of the person was lawful, so the killed was guilty.

Sometimes a person who shot someone is prosecuted and put on trial but found not guilty (the recent case in the USA when a policeman shot a black guy). Does it mean that the killing was lawful? And vice versa, sometimes a person who killed another is never prosecuted and put on trial. Does it mean that the killed was guilty?

“thus a crime, racist remark is not.” Really? You don’t intent to be racist?

Rasicm (as a worldview) is not a crime. It is if you DO something being guided by this worldview it turns into an aggravating circumstance to the crime.

“If the latter was, the prisons would be full of such convicts.” Not really as Racists in France try (and mostly succeed) to hind it, as shown in the example of the mayor hiding his racism behind laicité. Le Pen family, especially the daughter is good at it as well.

If you brought up the family: if any of them said what the characters in CH's pictures say (or pictures themselves are meant to say), would you not brand them (again) as bigots, racists and nazis? If you do, I start smelling a faint odor of hypocrisy.

“Violence is aimed at people who have NOTHING TO DO with Charlie Ebdo, unless sharing citizenship and/or confession.”: That shows the immense stupidity of the ones doing it, not the newspaper fault. It is very easy to stop violence, when you are the ones launching it. You just stop.

You again fail to see that the violence was not unprovoked. So it is very easy to stop insulting others when you provoke them into violence. You just stop.

“Charlie Ebdo is reaping huge income”: Yeah, what piece of luck having their friends and collaborators killed…

Yet they utilized the situation to the full extent and harvested all they could.

“if indeed Ukraine is to blame in suspending Mistral delivery” More than Charlie Hedbo for having been killed by obscurantist religious Muslim fanatics. CH shelled no cities, and killed no one.

Putin annexed the Crimea before Ukraine ever fired a shot. Sanctions had the annexation as a cause.

“And I'm not on the staff of Charlie Ebdo, but if I were I would apologize to Muslims all over” That why you will never be Charlie. Apologizing to the killers and the mob, bowing, grovelling to calm the barbarians (and this is an insult to barbarians to be compared to this lot)…

Now these are barbarians and those in Eastern Ukraine are oppressed minorities with a valid reason to feel insecure and threatened. Yet both behave similarly. Now it reeks of hypocrisy.
As for apologizing, you distort what I said. As usual. I said of apologizing to the Muslims who were insulted. I am sure there are many more of them than those barbarians.

Censorship and the restriction of free speech is perfectly applicable and effective when regarding things like national security, when the flow of information needs to be restricted.

Don't you think that when your establishments in other countries are under attack (like in Niger) it IS a national security issue? When the police in other countries (Belgium, Germany, Australia) "is activated into stanby mode" it IS a national (or in this case international) security issue?

[Fragony]

Why wouldn't you be able to name a school after Hitler. It's just satire, go ahead. Monty Python's best sketches involve Hitler. You can also just not be offended. What's it to you really, is there anything to be found that should really offend you. Mock the holocaust for all I care. Possibly offensive but I don't care, being offenced is just a choice.

You are not entitled for a life where you aren't mocked. Deal with it, you will have to deal with it anyway.

[Gilrandir]

Why wouldn't you be able to name a school after Hitler. It's just satire, go ahead. Monty Python's best sketches involve Hitler. You can also just not be offended. What's it to you really, is there anything to be found that should really offend you. Mock the holocaust for all I care. Possibly offensive but I don't care, being offenced is just a choice.

You are not entitled for a life where you aren't mocked. Deal with it, you will have to deal with it anyway.

Every mocking should have a limit which I term "the frontier of decency". If you choose to cross it (that is if you stop being decent) be ready for a feedback. Sometimes it may be violent, other times not, yet you should realize both chances and take precautions against the former. In my view the best precaution is to stay decent.

[rory_20_uk]

Every mocking should have a limit which I term "the frontier of decency". If you choose to cross it (that is if you stop being decent) be ready for a feedback. Sometimes it may be violent, other times not, yet you should realize both chances and take precautions against the former. In my view the best precaution is to stay decent.

Decent is a cultural line - and hence we have problems in countries that try to be multicultural rather than a dominant culture with tolerance of others.

[Husar]

Just like one shouldn't encroach on what the Russian Federation views as its general sphere of influence, basic decency dictates this.
Having a violent Nazi mob dislodge the elected Russian puppet can therefore be expected to meet a violent response, right?

[Gilrandir]

Decent is a cultural line - and hence we have problems in countries that try to be multicultural rather than a dominant culture with tolerance of others.

As I have argued, multicultural societies (wherever there is a dominant culture or not) are well aware of decency frontiers and normally don't cross them.

Just like one shouldn't encroach on what the Russian Federation views as its general sphere of influence, basic decency dictates this.

Decency, as Rory remarked, is a cultural (or rather moral) concept. It has nothing to do with political doctrine of a country.

Having a violent Nazi mob dislodge the elected Russian puppet can therefore be expected to meet a violent response, right?

This is a gross simplification of what has happened in Ukraine, but you start taunting me with what has been chewed for a year now. A response may be justified if it comes from within the country not headed by armed GRU officers (as Strelkov admitted).

[Fragony]

Every mocking should have a limit which I term "the frontier of decency". If you choose to cross it (that is if you stop being decent) be ready for a feedback. Sometimes it may be violent, other times not, yet you should realize both chances and take precautions against the former. In my view the best precaution is to stay decent.

The frontier of decency is not killing anyone. Getting rediculised is a courtusy reallly as it assumes you don't take offence. Satire doesn't hurt even if it stings a bit, by all means go in with a stretched leg, you only look like an idiot if you agree you do.