France steps up security at embassies as magazine publishes Prophet Mo cartoons

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why do people feel the need to pull this sh**t?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Charlie Hebdo can denounce Islamic extremism in a different manner without being so offensive. There is a difference between not kowtowing and deliberate provocation.

They denounce Islamic extremism by doing what they have always done: making goddamn satirical cartoons. That's their business, making cartoons. Whether they mock Islam, Catholicism, the French government or something else. If they stopped making cartoons about Islam-related stuff because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

They can make cartoons about Islam - just don't depict the Prophet. It's not hard.

OK, let me rephrase. If they stopped making cartoons about the Prophet because some dickheads somewhere in the world could get offended, then it would be plain old censorship. Period.

It would also be a highly ethical and responsible decision to make, but, you know, whatever.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

I also find it bewildering to see how often some of my fellow left-wingers fall for such a reactionary rhetoric. I don't want to pull a Not True Scotsman fallacy, but I find it really hard to reconcile bending to the anger of a few bigots with the basic values that make the core of progressive though.

It's rather easy if you're the type of leftist who has a serious problem with the conventional idea of 'progress'.

I don't think anybody's saying that the French government should take action against these Charlie Hebdo people. We're just saying that the Charlie Hebdo people are irresponsible morons.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

I also find it bewildering to see how often some of my fellow left-wingers fall for such a reactionary rhetoric. I don't want to pull a Not True Scotsman fallacy, but I find it really hard to reconcile bending to the anger of a few bigots with the basic values that make the core of progressive though.

It's rather easy if you're the type of leftist who has a serious problem with the conventional idea of 'progress'.

I don't think anybody's saying that the French government should take action against these Charlie Hebdo people. We're just saying that the Charlie Hebdo people are irresponsible morons.

You can not believe in progress and still think that the right to blasphemy is a fundamental principle which ought to be protected, not only in legislation but also in facts.

What? Whyever not? Even if we're constructing the most ridiculous strawmen possible, transition from a non-theocratic government to a theocratic one is a form of 'progress', just not towards something one might necessarily want.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe in 'progress', and I'm certainly not of the right. I believe in symptom relief.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The same discussion is ongoing with Al on the Democratic "factions" thread, which is probably more appropriate than this one. I think we can have an interesting debate on this issue.

I'd like to. Let's move there.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I always find it intresting when I agree with Antonio 100% on an issue.
(And even more intresting when Antonio and Belgian Socialist disagrees on something)

I also find it bewildering to see how often some of my fellow left-wingers fall for such a reactionary rhetoric. I don't want to pull a Not True Scotsman fallacy, but I find it really hard to reconcile bending to the anger of a few bigots with the basic values that make the core of progressive though.

It's rather easy if you're the type of leftist who has a serious problem with the conventional idea of 'progress'.

I don't think anybody's saying that the French government should take action against these Charlie Hebdo people. We're just saying that the Charlie Hebdo people are irresponsible morons.

You can not believe in progress and still think that the right to blasphemy is a fundamental principle which ought to be protected, not only in legislation but also in facts.

What? Whyever not? Even if we're constructing the most ridiculous strawmen possible, transition from a non-theocratic government to a theocratic one is a form of 'progress', just not towards something one might necessarily want.

Well, I obviously give a normative content to the notion of progress, otherwise it's indeed utterly meaningless.

The point is that theocracy is not the kind of government which a leftist would normally support...

Unless the leftist were Michel Foucault or somebody like that, you're probably right.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I came here to see how this thread had gone, and I hereby officially state that :

I'm in love with Antonio V.

He defended each and every point I would've, probably better than I would've, and never let go.

Now I'm curious. One of these days I'll draw a stick-man and write Muhammad under him, even in Arabic as I happen to know how to write in it, and publish it on this forum. Will it be censored ? And then I'll keep publishing it every day. I could even include a Muhammad caricature in my sig. We should get everybody used to it.

It's not because the Muslim world is in their 14th century that they should act like we did in ours...

Fifteenth century Anno Hegirae.