_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

The Mail v Reason....

Way to shoot yourself in the fucking foot...

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

David Aaronovitch has Tweeted:



Someone who isn't banned ought to mention that in a comment...

Yes Warsi, P(r)ickles and Cameron...

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

It's some stuff in there where I depart from Dawkins a bit.

I'm not sure there was a "woolly" liberal accomodation with Bradford book burners actually. One prominent critic of Rushdie was John Berger, whose line was that the whole thing took place in a class context- ie innocent, working class Muslims would cop it from right wing rich people seizing on Rushdie's book, and would suffer. I think he had a point about that, though of course the book burners were personally complete cunts. Berger probably wouldn't like to be called a liberal either, and there was a moral point behind his position rather than "hey, who's to say bookburning bad?". He shouldn't though have called for Rushdie to withdraw (voluntarily) the book.

Similarly, the cartoons were deeply unpleasant and dehumanising and contributed to Islamophobia, even without the reaction from murdering cunts. You don't have to believe in censorship or support hardline Islam to think the original publication was very regrettable.

No, but you don't have to call for the violent deaths of the authors or publishers either. Which was kind of the main point RD was making.

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

^ That.

Dawkins is calling for free speech and the ability to say what you want without being threatened. To be fair the mail, hypocritically, uses its voice to drown out dissent through bullying. Dawkins is supporting free thought with reciprocity.

Something that a lot of theists and the DM do not want.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

Yeah, I know calling for violent deaths of authors is wrong. I was objecting to the bit where he said what was happening was "woolly liberals" accommodating these murderous cunts. I gave the example of John Berger as a critic of Rushdie. He's pretty far from woolly.

I don't want the Danish cartoons banned. But did you see them? Were they an honest contribution to debate, or someone being a cunt? Wouldn't we be better off if whoever did them hadn't?

Why better if they hadn't been drawn? I don't think it is self-evident. I saw them, they were mostly about as witty as something by Mac. Nothing special about them.

People do not have a right to not be offended, likewise, others have a right to say things which may be taken as offensive. Some of them were rather crass, one or two struck me as downright racist, but a couple made valid points about the emancipation of women. Well, at least I know that from having viewed them. They're easy to find, just Google them and form your own opinion. At least you can, even if you don't like them.

There is no place for censorship and I think it was an absolute disgrace that the British press didn't print the cartoons to allow the public to make up their own minds. Under the fear of violence people allowed themselves to be censored. By whom? On what grounds?

The threat of violence is the problem, not the cartoons.

And you have to remember that the overwhelming majority of people who protested had not seen them.

I found some of them funny and some made a point. You could also suggest that the 'Life of Brian' was Monty Python being a cunt to Christians.

If muslims find the cartoons offensive then they do not need to look at them.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

Of course the threats of violence were wrong- I said that. And I also said I didn't want the cartoons banned (even the racist ones), and in any case they couldn't be, seeing they took 2 seconds to find on the internet. My point, and one I don't think Richard Dawkins gets, is that they were published in a context. That was what John Berger calls a "class context". Stuff like the cartoons- even without the reaction of the murdering jihad cunts- helps make things shittier for innocent and poor Muslims who already have a relatively shitty life; ho, ho,ho better inter a few more of them without trial. The Saudi royal family though are unaffected.

It's not, in his words, "woolly liberalism", a desire to protect religion, and an abdication of moral values. It's because people like Berger think the way Muslims are treated is very wrong, as I know we all do here.

Criticism of Islam is fine. Dawkins quite rightly highlighted a problem with Muslims not liking schools teaching evolution. It's just the (worst of) the cartoons weren't constructive like that.

I'm talking about the racist cartoons only.

Sure, you don't have to look at the cartoons. But you can't escape the atmosphere around Muslims, to which the racist cartoons contribute. The position of Muslims in society is totally different to the established church. If you're going to be provocative in the name of free speech, as is your right, you have to take that on board. (which, as I say again, isn't defending the cunts who pile in with death threats).

Well, you said yourself anyone could find them on the internet. So, deeply regrettable though the threats were, it wasn't really censorship.

I don't think you can condemn the British press though- as we both agree, the threat of violence was very real. Are you saying they should have put their staff at risk?

I wasn't aware that any were racist. Maybe I am wrong.



When Dawkinss uses the term "woolly liberal" he is pointing that some liberals apply inconsistent logic. Why demand that we tolerate intolerance?

If you are going to be provocative in the name of free speech then expect that people will be provocative, in the name of free speech, back to you. You cannot use religion as an excuse for threatening people. I don't have to take on board that islam is not the state religion when it comes to criticising it.

Criticism of Islam has been conflated with racism. Racists use Islam as a guise for their real motive. As if muslims are not capable of taking responsibility for their own behavior, which they most certainly are. They can choose whether they can brush off being provoked about their woo woo as much as any christian can when confronted with 'The Life of Brian'.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....