Nothing's easier than being for free speech -- today — Page 3
#53
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:32pm
.
Updated On: 1/9/15 at 01:32 PM
#54
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:32pm
I support your right to be Fantod.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#55
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:33pm
^^^ Brilliant response to the #OldLonelyGayMan
#56
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:33pm
I'm pretty sure you're older than me, boo.
#57
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:35pm
I am gay, but not old. And not lonely. Luv u.
#58
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:36pm
How old are you? I'll take your word on the lonely part.
#59
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:39pm
So what was the topic of the thread again...?
#60
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:42pm
From the Qu'ran:
“Forgive and show indulgence to them…Whosoever surrendereth his purpose to God while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve” (2:109-112).
This whole situation is just so horrible.
“Forgive and show indulgence to them…Whosoever surrendereth his purpose to God while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve” (2:109-112).
This whole situation is just so horrible.
Updated On: 1/9/15 at 01:42 PM
#61
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:44pm
"So what was the topic of the thread again...?"
Freedom of speech is terrible on the internet.
Freedom of speech is terrible on the internet.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#62
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:46pm
Carlos (and others): I was looking for a little nuance. I was queasy from the moment I saw the #JeSuisCharlie meme. The nuance I was looking for was about being able to hold several ideas at once, for instance: to be totally against the slaughter of humans and totally supportive of freedom of expression while not feeling any solidarity with most of the actual work a pot-stirring publication shat out into the world.
I put my free speech money where my mouth is by financially supporting the ACLU, national and local chapter. But I am not Charlie Hebdo.
I liked that the two articles I linked yesterday tried to get at some of these ideas, as well as today's NYTimes article.
But apparently that was untenable.
I put my free speech money where my mouth is by financially supporting the ACLU, national and local chapter. But I am not Charlie Hebdo.
I liked that the two articles I linked yesterday tried to get at some of these ideas, as well as today's NYTimes article.
But apparently that was untenable.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#63
#teamChrisCaggiano
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:57pm
#teamChrisCaggiano
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#64
Posted: 1/9/15 at 1:59pm
...being able to hold several ideas at once, for instance: to be totally against the slaughter of humans and totally supportive of freedom of expression while not feeling any solidarity with most of the actual work a pot-stirring publication shat out into the world.
I agree with this. I feel the same way. I'm all for free speech but I don't necessarily see eye-to-eye with a lot of what Hebdo's publication was doing or for that matter going about it, then again it was his right to free speech and he shouldn't have had to die for it.
I agree with this. I feel the same way. I'm all for free speech but I don't necessarily see eye-to-eye with a lot of what Hebdo's publication was doing or for that matter going about it, then again it was his right to free speech and he shouldn't have had to die for it.
#65
Posted: 1/9/15 at 2:08pm
On top of all that, I realize that expecting to be able to touch upon ideas like "What do we all mean by 'free speech'?" is just way way too much.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#66
Posted: 1/9/15 at 2:29pm
I read this today and thought it was pretty nuanced and would fit right in with this discussion. I agree with this view of the concept of 'free speech'.
"Free speech has consequences. Saying it doesn’t is magical — it presupposes that there is some universal law which holds that good things will always happen when people are given license to speak their minds. Not always. But censoring political, symbolic, and religious speech, or trying not to offend anyone often have worse consequences. Censoring enfeebles our minds. Avoiding controversy removes the edge from humor. Protecting people from cartoons concedes sacred ground to much more harmful beliefs and practices.
Let the ink flow."
"Free speech has consequences. Saying it doesn’t is magical — it presupposes that there is some universal law which holds that good things will always happen when people are given license to speak their minds. Not always. But censoring political, symbolic, and religious speech, or trying not to offend anyone often have worse consequences. Censoring enfeebles our minds. Avoiding controversy removes the edge from humor. Protecting people from cartoons concedes sacred ground to much more harmful beliefs and practices.
Let the ink flow."
#67
Posted: 1/9/15 at 2:36pm
#enfeebles
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#68
I like that Robbie. Here's the rest of Marc Ambinder's post:
THIS WEEK: The Compass With Marc Ambinder: Slandering the prophet? Let the ink flow.
Posted: 1/9/15 at 3:03pm
I like that Robbie. Here's the rest of Marc Ambinder's post:
THIS WEEK: The Compass With Marc Ambinder: Slandering the prophet? Let the ink flow.
Updated On: 1/9/15 at 03:03 PM
#69
Posted: 1/9/15 at 3:04pm
I found The Paris Review interview with Michel Houellebecq, the author of "Submission" who was to be lampooned on the cover of Charlie Hebdo for his Islamaphobia both illuminating and maddening.
Once sentence jumped out and immediately made me think of the shift that was imposed on this thread:
I can’t say that the book is a provocation—if that means saying things I consider fundamentally untrue just to get on people’s nerves.
It allowed me to take a deep breath and to, as Maureen sang in Rent: let it go.
Scare Tactics: Michel Houellebecq Defends His Controversial New Book
Once sentence jumped out and immediately made me think of the shift that was imposed on this thread:
I can’t say that the book is a provocation—if that means saying things I consider fundamentally untrue just to get on people’s nerves.
It allowed me to take a deep breath and to, as Maureen sang in Rent: let it go.
Scare Tactics: Michel Houellebecq Defends His Controversial New Book
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
Updated On: 1/9/15 at 03:04 PM
#70
Posted: 1/9/15 at 3:47pm
You would do well to let go of those things that don't directly harm or impact you. Including those issues discussed in a fictional virtual universe.
#71
Posted: 1/9/15 at 3:50pm
Go away, abscessory.
For the rest of you, including the one who is actually my friend but is now finding the strange bedfellowship of BrainlessHeadband: If I were better at concretizing my feelings and thoughts during such difficult times, I would like to think I would be able to come up with an article as great as "Why I Am Not Charlie" on the website A Paper Bird. I have to work hard to resist the binary American urge to declare myself a member of a team and to stick with it, no matter what.
There are almost a dozen lines in this article I would happily pull to quote, but I'll just print one here and supply a link and say that honestly, THIS is what I was trying to get at with the original idea for this thread.
This kind of low-cost, risk-free, E-Z solidarity is only possible in a social-media age, where you can strike a pose and somebody sees it on their timeline for 15 seconds and then they move on and it’s forgotten except for the feeling of accomplishment it gave you. Solidarity is hard because it isn’t about imaginary identifications, it’s about struggling across the canyon of not being someone else: it’s about recognizing, for instance, that somebody died because they were different from you, in what they did or believed or were or wore, not because they were the same. If people who are feeling concrete loss or abstract shock or indignation take comfort in proclaiming a oneness that seems to fill the void, then it serves an emotional end. But these Cartesian credos on Facebook and Twitter — I am Charlie, therefore I am — shouldn’t be mistaken for political acts.
It resonates for anyone who giggled as the Headband flooded thread after thread with video and demanding that posters "SAY YOU DON'T WANT DEAD COPS!" It's the same ridiculous impulse.
Why I Am Not Charlie
For the rest of you, including the one who is actually my friend but is now finding the strange bedfellowship of BrainlessHeadband: If I were better at concretizing my feelings and thoughts during such difficult times, I would like to think I would be able to come up with an article as great as "Why I Am Not Charlie" on the website A Paper Bird. I have to work hard to resist the binary American urge to declare myself a member of a team and to stick with it, no matter what.
There are almost a dozen lines in this article I would happily pull to quote, but I'll just print one here and supply a link and say that honestly, THIS is what I was trying to get at with the original idea for this thread.
This kind of low-cost, risk-free, E-Z solidarity is only possible in a social-media age, where you can strike a pose and somebody sees it on their timeline for 15 seconds and then they move on and it’s forgotten except for the feeling of accomplishment it gave you. Solidarity is hard because it isn’t about imaginary identifications, it’s about struggling across the canyon of not being someone else: it’s about recognizing, for instance, that somebody died because they were different from you, in what they did or believed or were or wore, not because they were the same. If people who are feeling concrete loss or abstract shock or indignation take comfort in proclaiming a oneness that seems to fill the void, then it serves an emotional end. But these Cartesian credos on Facebook and Twitter — I am Charlie, therefore I am — shouldn’t be mistaken for political acts.
It resonates for anyone who giggled as the Headband flooded thread after thread with video and demanding that posters "SAY YOU DON'T WANT DEAD COPS!" It's the same ridiculous impulse.
Why I Am Not Charlie
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
Updated On: 1/9/15 at 03:50 PM
#72
Posted: 1/9/15 at 4:28pm
That was an extraordinary piece, Namo...thank you.
It made me think about a lot of things that have nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo, and why I have an aversion to simple (simplistic?) statements of support on social media. I mean...I've fallen prey. I changed my FB profile pic the day of the Boston Marathon bombing to a pic of a Red Sox hat. I mean...what did that do, really? Made me feel good that I could Google and right click? That's really all I did. I meant it...sincerely. But is our baseline really 'Murder is bad'? Is that what we were really all saying that day? I would hope that it's a given.
This article also really clarified some things for me regarding satire, a form of expression I don't really love all that much. The idea that it comes from a place of superiority really rankles. I prefer to watch and make art that is experiential. I want to dive in to another's life, not stand on the outside and comment on it. Now...I've done that. And sometimes it's been fun...but it's never as rewarding as, say, giving a speech about how naive it would be to think that Obama would react differently to drone warfare because he was our black, progressive savior. Giving voice to the uncomfortable thought or the less-heard point of view is why I do what I do. Standing apart from it and commenting on it is sometimes part of the job, but it's not something that really excites me or lets me do my best work.
Do we really need to voice our opposition to violence? Is that doing something? Or do we need to extend ourselves in whatever ways possible to lessen the threat of violence?
It made me think about a lot of things that have nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo, and why I have an aversion to simple (simplistic?) statements of support on social media. I mean...I've fallen prey. I changed my FB profile pic the day of the Boston Marathon bombing to a pic of a Red Sox hat. I mean...what did that do, really? Made me feel good that I could Google and right click? That's really all I did. I meant it...sincerely. But is our baseline really 'Murder is bad'? Is that what we were really all saying that day? I would hope that it's a given.
This article also really clarified some things for me regarding satire, a form of expression I don't really love all that much. The idea that it comes from a place of superiority really rankles. I prefer to watch and make art that is experiential. I want to dive in to another's life, not stand on the outside and comment on it. Now...I've done that. And sometimes it's been fun...but it's never as rewarding as, say, giving a speech about how naive it would be to think that Obama would react differently to drone warfare because he was our black, progressive savior. Giving voice to the uncomfortable thought or the less-heard point of view is why I do what I do. Standing apart from it and commenting on it is sometimes part of the job, but it's not something that really excites me or lets me do my best work.
Do we really need to voice our opposition to violence? Is that doing something? Or do we need to extend ourselves in whatever ways possible to lessen the threat of violence?
#73
Posted: 1/9/15 at 4:31pm
Here's the thing - I may not buy or agree with the way that Charlie Hebdo went about its business, but I will defend completely its right to do so in a free society. So, when the reaction to cartoons and commentary is violence, I will stand up and say the rights and values I live with do not support responding to satire and even offensive commentary in this manner.
I defended the rights of Nazi's years ago to march in Skokie for the same reason. I may find the values and statements horrible, but the right to say them is absolute.
So, when I say that I am Charlie - it is not saying that I agree with what the magazine stands for, but instead, that I agree with the fact that the magazine had the right in a free society to say it.
I hope that makes sense.
I defended the rights of Nazi's years ago to march in Skokie for the same reason. I may find the values and statements horrible, but the right to say them is absolute.
So, when I say that I am Charlie - it is not saying that I agree with what the magazine stands for, but instead, that I agree with the fact that the magazine had the right in a free society to say it.
I hope that makes sense.
#74
Hypothetically, if a hashtag arose around the march in Skokie, would you have proclaimed #IAmNazi?
I think that's part of what's at the core of Namo's argument here, how we choose to align (or not align) ourselves.
Posted: 1/9/15 at 4:36pm
Hypothetically, if a hashtag arose around the march in Skokie, would you have proclaimed #IAmNazi?
I think that's part of what's at the core of Namo's argument here, how we choose to align (or not align) ourselves.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#75
Posted: 1/9/15 at 4:41pm
Updated On: 1/9/15 at 04:41 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $72
Tickets From $106
