Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Do you want to imply that I am a racist? Nuts.

But nice that you defend the right of islamists to firebomb others. But that is okay: After all you just quite forcefully othered publishers of satirical magazines and other undesirables.

I think the publishers and writers of this magazine, even if you have for some idiotic and clueless reason decided to declare them heretics, have a right to be not firebombed. That is quite reasonable demand.

If you can't even see that, you have a problem.

And then you are indeed no longer any part of "us", that is of a left dedicated to   Enlightenment values.

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:24:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
IM:
But nice that you defend the right of islamists to firebomb others.

Do I? Can you point to the post where I did? Are you so desperately out of arguments that you take to misrepresentations?

IM:

But that is okay: After all you just quite forcefully othered publishers of satirical magazines and other undesirables.

The publishers of satirical magazines must be held accountable for the dissemination of hate speech like anyone else.

IM:

you have for some idiotic and clueless reason decided to declare them heretics

Again: I challenge you to point to the post where I did. You can't. You have invented this claim.

by Katrin on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have just called them racists. Earlier you have called them xenophobes. Accusations, I may add, that you have invented out of thin air.

"The publishers of satirical magazines must be held accountable for the dissemination of hate speech like anyone else."

A picture of Mohammed isn't hate speech. And vigilante justice like firebombing isn't the right way to hold someone accountable.

If you really think for some unscrutable reason that they are engaging in hate speech, sue them. That is the proper way to deal with it. Perhaps you could transmit this way of procedure to your new allies on the islamic right?

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 08:55:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
IM:
You have just called them racists. Earlier you have called them xenophobes.

Accusations that I have argued. And where did I call them heretics? Where?  If I was arguing heresy or the like, the debate would be completely different. So why the fuck are you claiming that?

IM:

A picture of Mohammed isn't hate speech

That depends on the message the picture transports. If pictures can't be hate speech, a cartoon of a banker with hooked nose and vile smirk wouldn't be either. Are you arguing that?

IM:

And vigilante justice like firebombing isn't the right way to hold someone accountable.

My own prehistoric activities in front of the Axel-Springer-House don't belong to the wisest things I ever did, but they were a way to hold that media concern accountable. Anyway, all firebombing in reaction to the publication we are discussing here has been invented by you and Jake. When will you get that there was no firebombing?

IM:

If you really think for some unscrutable reason that they are engaging in hate speech, sue them. That is the proper way to deal with it.

With what right are you telling me to shut up? Where is your defence of free speech? If I decide it is the proper way to argue against this hate speech, how come you have the last word on it?

IM:

Perhaps you could transmit this way of procedure to your new allies on the islamic right?

And now you have not only run out of arguments, you have come completely unglued.

by Katrin on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 09:25:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Accusations that I have argued. And where did I call them heretics? Where?  If I was arguing heresy or the like, the debate would be completely different. So why the fuck are you claiming that?"

that is called a metaphor. Racists and xenophobes are surely heretics to the left.

"That depends on the message the picture transports. If pictures can't be hate speech, a cartoon of a banker with hooked nose and vile smirk wouldn't be either. Are you arguing that?"

No. Do you argue that every depiction of a banker is hate speech?

Furthermore:

>Controversy arose over the publication's February 9, 2006 edition. Under the title "Mahomet débordé par les intégristes" ("Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists"), the front page showed a cartoon of a weeping Prophet Muhammad saying "C'est dur d'être aimé par des cons" ("it's hard being loved by jerks").<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo#1992.E2.80.932010

That is not hate speech but rather defending Mohammed against his islamist fans.

"My own prehistoric activities in front of the Axel-Springer-House don't belong to the wisest things I ever did, but they were a way to hold that media concern accountable. Anyway, all firebombing in reaction to the publication we are discussing here has been invented by you and Jake. When will you get that there was no firebombing?"

In the early hours of November 2, 2011, the newspaper's office in the 20th arrondissement[8] was fire-bombed and its website hacked.

And regrading Springer - do you really compare the most powerful german media comglomerate and a small satiric paper?  bY the way, how did your protest work out?

"With what right are you telling me to shut up? Where is your defence of free speech? If I decide it is the proper way to argue against this hate speech, how come you have the last word on it?"

I have not told you to shut up. I just think you are wrong. That is called having an argument.

"And now you have not only run out of arguments, you have come completely unglued."

You have just argued that a fire-bomb is sometimes a valid way of protest, so I am not so sure who is unglued here.

by IM on Sun Jan 6th, 2013 at 09:40:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series