Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
81 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Some people just insist on showing their "but"s (Original Post) Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 OP
i like buts Enrique Jan 2015 #1
In most cases I agree, and I think that's always the side to err on. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #3
bigotry WhaTHellsgoingonhere Jan 2015 #48
Five year plan? For your pleasure? N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #54
explained WhaTHellsgoingonhere Jan 2015 #70
I think that that is obvious nonsense. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #78
Question: Does chewing out a BUT Monkey make you a BUT Muncher? TheBlackAdder Jan 2015 #29
Murdering over anything is wrong, given the definition of murder randys1 Jan 2015 #2
Sounds a tad too tautological. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #7
R. Crumb loves showing Ralph (Mohamid) Bakshi's butt Brother Buzz Jan 2015 #4
the flies are a nice touch Enrique Jan 2015 #5
Almost reminiscent of a Mad Magazine cartoon. nt TheBlackAdder Jan 2015 #30
Interesting how he implies even he is scared to present a profane image of the prophet oberliner Jan 2015 #13
He spoke of this cartoon today. I don't think he is scared at all. Raine1967 Jan 2015 #23
Yes, he definitely clearly is oberliner Jan 2015 #24
It's a "but butt" cartoon, that.... nt MADem Jan 2015 #33
I like how he takes a swipe at Ralph Bakshi in the process. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #22
I know about R. Crumb and Fritz the Cat separately but what is the connection? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #25
Fritz the Cat was a Crumb character, originally Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #26
Forty-two years and counting. Brother Buzz Jan 2015 #27
Seriously. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #28
Seriously, Terry Zwigoff's film, Crumb, is totally worth checking out, too Brother Buzz Jan 2015 #35
Oh yeah. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #38
Bleak might have been the view of the two conspicuously absent sisters from the film Brother Buzz Jan 2015 #40
"Get a load of this".. I think I've heard that one, before. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #41
Crumb was my neighbor years ago before he bolted to France Brother Buzz Jan 2015 #45
How cool!~ I think butt biting is technically different from frotting--- but probably not by much. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #53
lol nt m-lekktor Jan 2015 #46
But, but, but ... rock Jan 2015 #6
Sir Mix-A-Lot would be happy here. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #8
...and he cannot lie. nt MADem Jan 2015 #34
It's the "imps and whores" culture that have been allowed to engulfed America. eom Hutzpa Jan 2015 #9
You mean Tyrion Lannister? Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #18
For real. bravenak Jan 2015 #51
Do you like everything the police do? CJCRANE Jan 2015 #10
I see you added a second comment, which is more in line with the OP. This particular post isn't Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #15
The context of the police discussions is, some people died at the hands of the police. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #20
Yes, but the NYPD say that you shouldn't criticize them otherwise CJCRANE Jan 2015 #68
Telling people what they are allowed to say brer cat Jan 2015 #11
Where did I make any pretense at restricting speech? I simply noted people are making Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #14
Perhaps I failed to see the point of your OP. brer cat Jan 2015 #32
If the cartoons are offending people... CJCRANE Jan 2015 #12
It's an indication of not wanting to talk about ... frazzled Jan 2015 #16
"Sometimes, you just have call a cigar a cigar" Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #19
victim blaming. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #17
Is it possible to discuss how people chose to use their right to free speech el_bryanto Jan 2015 #21
How about we discuss how people use their right to freedom of religion? Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #37
I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate here. nt el_bryanto Jan 2015 #39
that right there is the problem Skittles Jan 2015 #49
Then explain it to me. nt el_bryanto Jan 2015 #55
If Seth McFarlane had just been killed for his off-putting jokes a couple days ago Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #42
Fair enough. el_bryanto Jan 2015 #43
On any given day I could be counted among the critics of Hebdo for their bigoted nastiness Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #44
The Duke lacrosse case bluestateguy Jan 2015 #31
you really, really had to stretch there Skittles Jan 2015 #50
Don't tutch the but meow2u3 Jan 2015 #36
Yup... countryjake Jan 2015 #52
these apologists make me SICK Skittles Jan 2015 #47
bullshit. you are demanding hypocrisy from people. no. how about that. no buts. just a no. seabeyond Jan 2015 #56
I never came close to suggesting bigoted speech cannot be castigated as such. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #57
no one calling out the hate is saying they deserve it. and when you come on here and claim seabeyond Jan 2015 #59
How is my being critical of the but monkeys restricting free speech for but monkeys? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #60
if anyone walks from your script of what is allowed ot be said, you call them but monkeys and tell seabeyond Jan 2015 #61
So challenging me is NOT suppression but my challenging the but monkeys is Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #62
you are not challenging what others say. you are demanding that others not say it. if they do, seabeyond Jan 2015 #63
You're delusional. I made no such demands. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #64
Just say, "No" to BUT monkeys. ??? no to but monkeys is what i quote and you call me delusional. seabeyond Jan 2015 #65
What's insulting is having words put in my mouth. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #69
I don't condone gang rape, BUT TorchTheWitch Jan 2015 #74
Your analogies fail because none of them ascribe culpability to the victim. Simply adding the word Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #75
What a pant load TorchTheWitch Jan 2015 #80
If you insist on claiming my OP is about trying to silence the but monkeys than you are either Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #81
if people are allowed to criticize charlie hebdo, other people are allowed to criticize those people, too. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #71
Subordinate clauses are difficult for the sub-literate. LanternWaste Jan 2015 #58
I have more in common with Charlie Hebdo than I do with the terrorists, **BUT** ... dawg Jan 2015 #66
ah. thank you dawgs. very good post. i have not really been in a lot of the threads. seabeyond Jan 2015 #67
Lots and lots of buts Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #72
But what about us HOWEVER monkeys? Violet_Crumble Jan 2015 #73
"Are we destined to live forever on the fringes of free speech flamefests?" Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #76
The word but stands in direct opposition to black and white thinking. NCTraveler Jan 2015 #77
Try "and" instead of "but." Iggo Jan 2015 #79

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
1. i like buts
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 02:27 PM
Jan 2015

buts are what prevent wars. If you don't have any buts, then you have to take everything to the extreme, which is war.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
3. In most cases I agree, and I think that's always the side to err on.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 02:36 PM
Jan 2015

Killing people for blasphemy, however, is a counterexample, at least in the immediate aftermath.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
70. explained
Tue Jan 13, 2015, 10:43 PM
Jan 2015

"Blasphemy is the practice of questioning a tradition from within. In contrast, bigotry is an assault on hat tradition from the outside. If blasphemy is an attempt to speak truth to power, bigotry is the reverse: an attempt by power to instrumentalize truth. A defining feature of the cartoon debate is that bigotry is being mistaken for blasphemy" ~ Dr.Mahmood Mamdani

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
78. I think that that is obvious nonsense.
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 03:40 PM
Jan 2015

He's creating a wholly spurious and artificial distinction to try and smear people who disagree with his views.

One reason it's obviously not true is that the term "blasphemers" is often used to by religious people to attack non-practitioners of their religion.

Another reason is that it means that pointing out that, say, criminalising homosexuality is wrong, is bigotted.


Incidentally, I just googled Dr Mamdani and, amusingly, I found this passage:

"He was among the many northern students who made the bus journey south to Birmingham, Alabama organised by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) to participate in the civil rights movement. He was jailed during the march and was allowed to make a phone call. Mamdani called the Ugandan Ambassador in Washington, D.C for assistance. The ambassador asked him why he was 'interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign country' to which he responded by saying that this was not an internal affair but a freedom struggle and that they too had got their freedom only last year."

Well, good for him back then, but he's just very obviously defined himself as bigot...

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
7. Sounds a tad too tautological.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 03:29 PM
Jan 2015

Consider: The Iranian government (as opposed to the Iranian people) said murdering innocents is wrong.

But this is the same government (not people) that has declared Salman Rushdie as being not innocent.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
13. Interesting how he implies even he is scared to present a profane image of the prophet
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 05:07 PM
Jan 2015

A lot going on in that little cartoon - very meta.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
23. He spoke of this cartoon today. I don't think he is scared at all.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 06:51 PM
Jan 2015
http://observer.com/2015/01/legendary-cartoonist-robert-crumb-on-the-massacre-in-paris/ two thing stuck out to me:

"France has an Arab population that’s like, 5 Million, something like that – huge population of Muslims in this country, most of whom just want to mind their own business and don’t want to be bothered. Those kinds of extremists are a very small minority. We have friends here who are from that background, you know, Moroccan or Algerian. And they just don’t want any trouble, and their kids are mostly even more moderate than they are."


and this:

"You don’t have journalists over there anymore, what they have is public relations people. That’s what they have over in America now. Two-hundred and fifty thousand people in public relations. And a dwindling number of actual reporters and journalists."
 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
24. Yes, he definitely clearly is
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 06:54 PM
Jan 2015

And that is part of the point of the cartoon.

From the link:

I said, first: “I don’t have the courage to make an insulting cartoon of Muhammed.”

Then I thought, “OK, I’m the Cowardly Cartoonist…As a Cowardly Cartoonist, I can’t make some glib comment like that, you know? I have to, like, make fun of myself. So instead of drawing the face of Muhammed [laughs], I drew the ass of Muhammed. [Laughs.] But then I had myself saying, in small lettering, “Actually, this is the ass of my friend of Mohamid Bakshi, who’s a film director in Los Angeles, California.” [Mr. Crumb is referencing Ralph Bakshi, the director of animated films including Fritz the Cat and the Lord of the Rings.]

So if they come at me, I’m gonna say, “No, look, it’s not Muhammed the Prophet, it’s this guy, Mohamid Bakshi.” So, you know.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
22. I like how he takes a swipe at Ralph Bakshi in the process.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 06:50 PM
Jan 2015


Crumb was NOT happy about Bakshi's "Fritz the Cat", and apparently he can hold a grudge for a long time.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
26. Fritz the Cat was a Crumb character, originally
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 07:23 PM
Jan 2015

Bakshi did his movie- I think, without Crumb's permission at all, at the very least Crumb was real unhappy about it- so much so that Crumb eventually killed the character off.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_the_Cat

Brother Buzz

(36,528 posts)
27. Forty-two years and counting.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 07:27 PM
Jan 2015

Crumb despises Ralph Bakshi so much, he killed Fritz the Cat. It may take five, or it may take fifty, but I'll get even.



Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
28. Seriously.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 07:31 PM
Jan 2015

What's also funny in discussions of Crumb and "Blasphemy" is, his illustrated book of genesis is simply a masterpiece.

And Crumb self-identifies as an Atheist, I believe- but he avoided raising the ire of Christians with the Bible deal by doing a completely straight up adaptation of the text.

Of course, the actual text IS full of mayhem, sex, and wholly unsuitable for children- but since it is all actually there in King James, it is hard to lodge a religious objection.

Totally worth checking out.

Brother Buzz

(36,528 posts)
35. Seriously, Terry Zwigoff's film, Crumb, is totally worth checking out, too
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 08:34 PM
Jan 2015

Also R. Crumb & his Cheap Suit Serenaders for a totally different perspective of Crumb's world; old music is a huge part of it.




Terry Zwigoff on cello, Robert Armstrong on National steel guitar and saw, Al Dodge on mandolin, Robert Crumb on left handed banjo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLD5FF8F34A0CE3CA5&v=FSUu62QNPwg

Brother Buzz

(36,528 posts)
40. Bleak might have been the view of the two conspicuously absent sisters from the film
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 10:37 PM
Jan 2015

I've often wondered what they might have contributed.




My favorite Cheap Suiter song is Get A Load Of This, loosely based on Charley Jordan’s Keep It Clean:




I wonder who did the artwork?

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
41. "Get a load of this".. I think I've heard that one, before.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 11:00 PM
Jan 2015

I ate that damn Swanson Turkey dinner, more than once. They all looked exactly like the package.

You must live in the Bay Area. My wife used to see Max Crumb on the BART, back in the day. I don't think he ever frotted her, though.

Brother Buzz

(36,528 posts)
45. Crumb was my neighbor years ago before he bolted to France
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 12:02 AM
Jan 2015

I wouldn't know frotting if it bit me in the butt, but I was morbidly curious about Max's intestinal flossing. That, and his bed of nails.


The original Cheap Suiters at Crumbs house in France


The original Cheap Suiters early on


I've met all the Suiters over the years. Armstrong, another graphic artist and creator of Micky Rat, taught my son the secrets of the fine art.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
53. How cool!~ I think butt biting is technically different from frotting--- but probably not by much.
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 03:57 AM
Jan 2015

They did a nice job of recreating the original picture, there.

Yeah, the intestinal flossing.

I have a poster signed by Stan Mouse somewhere, but have never met Mr. Crumb.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
10. Do you like everything the police do?
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 04:36 PM
Jan 2015

Do you think the police deserve to do their job without being attacked?

We all criticize the police but we think they deserve to do their job in safety. This same argument is playing out in NYC right now, that we shouldn't criticize them.

As for the cartoons, it's a matter of taste. I saw one I didn't like, but then later I saw one that I did like. I feel for the cartoonists' humanity. It's a very sad situation, they don't deserve to be attacked for what they do.



Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
15. I see you added a second comment, which is more in line with the OP. This particular post isn't
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 05:13 PM
Jan 2015

what I was addressing but since you broached the subject allow me to say -- I like the police so much I became an anarchist.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
20. The context of the police discussions is, some people died at the hands of the police.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 06:47 PM
Jan 2015

However one feels about the circumstances of those situations, that's why it has come up.

The Charlie Hebdo cartoons didn't cause anyone to die, unless "they made me so mad I was forced to kill the people who drew them" counts.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
68. Yes, but the NYPD say that you shouldn't criticize them otherwise
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 11:20 AM
Jan 2015

you are condoning the murder of their officers, in particular the two officers who were murdered recently.

It's a similar way of conflating two separate issues.

Plus as I mentioned below, the whole point about Charlie Hebdo is being offensive, so it would be strange if people didn't comment on that. One can have an opinion about the magazine's content and also one about what happened to the cartoonists. They are two separate opinions. And if you think the cartoons are offensive then they're doing what they're supposed to do. I think some of them are offensive but I now "get" what they're were trying to do and I might buy a copy.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
14. Where did I make any pretense at restricting speech? I simply noted people are making
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 05:10 PM
Jan 2015

equivocating arguments.

brer cat

(24,744 posts)
32. Perhaps I failed to see the point of your OP.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 08:01 PM
Jan 2015

I haven't noticed what I think of as equivocating arguments in the recent posts about the Charlie Hebdo murders. But then you didn't finish the sentence "Even now people are saying, 'Murdering over speech is wrong -- BUT...'" so maybe you are referring to comments I haven't seen, or a different subject entirely, or perhaps you just dislike the use of "but" regardless of what follows. I surely don't know how to interpret "just say 'no' to the but monkey" other than telling folks what to say or not say, but I could be wrong there as well.

At any rate, I was not trying to pick a fight with you.





CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
12. If the cartoons are offending people...
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 05:05 PM
Jan 2015

then they're doing their job!

So it would be strange if people *didn't* complain about them!

The cartoonist who wasn't in the meeting said he "vomits" on all of their new fans. This is what they do and did well.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
16. It's an indication of not wanting to talk about ...
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 06:37 PM
Jan 2015

the underlying issue (let's be frank: it's about a jihadist ideology that has attracted many adherents, and the actions, all over the globe, that have been taken in its name). And so people try to hijack the conversation to whatever favorite screed they wish to rant about.

Sometimes, you just have call a cigar a cigar and deal with the ashes. (And now, we can call them Cuban cigars!).

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
21. Is it possible to discuss how people chose to use their right to free speech
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 06:48 PM
Jan 2015

without suggesting that you think they deserve to be murdered for exercising it?

If I said for example, I think Family Guy has about three jokes, and an inherent nastiness about it that just puts me off, does that imply I want Seth McFarlane killed?

Bryant

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
37. How about we discuss how people use their right to freedom of religion?
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 09:31 PM
Jan 2015

So if I say religion has about two good ideas, an inherent nastiness and that it just puts me off, what does that mean about the fact that killing people is just wrong, no qualifications?

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
42. If Seth McFarlane had just been killed for his off-putting jokes a couple days ago
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 11:07 PM
Jan 2015

now might not be the best time to go on and on about how terribly offensive his shtick was.

In fact, some might consider that "off-putting".

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
43. Fair enough.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 11:11 PM
Jan 2015

I find myself torn on this issue; because on the one hand I agree that it is too soon to discuss that - on the other hand, certainly a number of people are making arguments related to these murders involving Islam, Muslims and religion in general that are hard to respond to without talking about some of these issues.

But perhaps it is best to just let that go for a bit.

Bryant

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
44. On any given day I could be counted among the critics of Hebdo for their bigoted nastiness
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 11:53 PM
Jan 2015

because they have offended some of my deepest beliefs.

On the day they are threatened with violence or worse I am obligated to defend them because my even deeper beliefs haven't been merely offended but violated.

bluestateguy

(44,173 posts)
31. The Duke lacrosse case
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 07:46 PM
Jan 2015

After the young men were cleared by the state AG as explicitly innocent, we had some of the "but" crowd here on DU.

That it was somehow their fault for putting themselves into a position where they could be wrongly accused.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
56. bullshit. you are demanding hypocrisy from people. no. how about that. no buts. just a no.
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 09:04 AM
Jan 2015

talk about restriction of freedom of speech.

yes murder is wrong. still does not mean one cannot call out the bullshit.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
57. I never came close to suggesting bigoted speech cannot be castigated as such.
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 09:19 AM
Jan 2015

Hebdo published material that offended many of my deepest beliefs and as such they should be confronted but the moment they were threatened with violence those same beliefs tell me they are to be protected.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
59. no one calling out the hate is saying they deserve it. and when you come on here and claim
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 09:23 AM
Jan 2015

if anyone challenges that hate, then they are "but monkeys" somehow condoning the murders, then you are using your freedom of speech to try and restrict others.

no. at the point of the threat, or after the killings, our responsibility is to clearly state the violence is wrong. right alongside the ability to print racist, hateful speech.

to condemn one is not to condone the other. life simply does not work that way. our brain is agile enough to figure that out.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
60. How is my being critical of the but monkeys restricting free speech for but monkeys?
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 09:31 AM
Jan 2015

Is your being critical of me a restriction of my free speech? I doubt it because damned is the day anyone can shut me up.

at the point of the threat, or after the killings, our responsibility is to clearly state the violence is wrong. right alongside the ability to print racist, hateful speech

But the two are dealt with completely differently. Bigotry is dealt with dialogue between free citizens. Violence or the threat of it are a matter for criminal prosecution.
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
61. if anyone walks from your script of what is allowed ot be said, you call them but monkeys and tell
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 09:38 AM
Jan 2015

them to shut up, because they are condoning murder, with the buts. though no one is using the buts. they are stating murder and violence is wrong.

challenging you, what you are saying is not telling you to shut up. it is disagreeing what you are saying. nowhere are you hearing me say, you are not allowed to say what you are. i am saying, i disagree with you.

you do not see the difference.

and the rest of your post? so? i am fine with it. yes. bigotry is dealt with thru society and violence is dealt with law.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
62. So challenging me is NOT suppression but my challenging the but monkeys is
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 09:57 AM
Jan 2015
you do not see the difference

Yeah, pretty much. It sounds like conveniently structured hypocritical nonsense.

But you be you, I have no interest silencing debate, be a pal and return the favor.
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
63. you are not challenging what others say. you are demanding that others not say it. if they do,
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 10:00 AM
Jan 2015

then they are condoning murder.

you are using a vile manner to shut people up.

i am not doing that. i disagree with you. i am stating where i disagree with you. i am telling you that i can say.... but, without condoning violence and murder.

you are telling me, if i say but, i am condoning violence and murder. you are flat out in your OP telling me and others, we are NOT allowed to use but.

that is dictating speech.

NO but monkey is what you say.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
64. You're delusional. I made no such demands.
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 10:06 AM
Jan 2015
NO but monkey is what you say.

If you're going to quote me, quote me accurately.

I wrote, "just say no to but monkeys" That is no more an effort to suppress speech than would be a statement of, "say no to bigotry."
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
65. Just say, "No" to BUT monkeys. ??? no to but monkeys is what i quote and you call me delusional.
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 10:08 AM
Jan 2015

thanks for going to insult.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
69. What's insulting is having words put in my mouth.
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 01:43 PM
Jan 2015

Since you like adding to what people say let's try an experiment. Please finish the following --

"I don't condone gang rape -- BUT __________ ."

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
74. I don't condone gang rape, BUT
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 12:10 AM
Jan 2015

I also don't condone vigilante killing of any of the rapers involved in the gang rape. BUT, I also understand the intense anger against the rapers for having raped you or a loved one that fuels the desire for vigilante "justice" or revenge.

I don't condone gang rape, BUT I also believe that it is reprehensible to blame the victim for their own rape regardless of what she wore, where she was, what she was doing, etc.

If you aren't willing to listen to what comes after the "BUT" and insist that whatever is said after the BUT is unworthy of being said even though you don't yet know what is going to be said then you're trying to curtail someone else's freedom of speech. Worse, your insisting that whatever may be said after that "BUT" means that regardless of what may be said it has to mean that the person that hasn't even yet said anything is going to be saying something that belies their insistence that they don't condone XYZ.

I just gave an example to your question that certainly a reasonable person - even you - couldn't and wouldn't disagree with. BUT, you are advocating that anyone that says anything about the attacks in France that condemns the attack followed by a "BUT" IS going to condone the killings or blame the victims for having been killed, etc. when you don't yet know what is going to be said after that "BUT". Clearly that is an attempt to silence others (against the concept of free speech). Worse, it demonizes anyone that says anything after the "BUT" must be condoning the attack and/or blaming the victims for being killed even when they don't do anything of the sort or have yet to say anything at all.

Yes, it is possible to condemn the attack and ALSO not approve of what was said by the victims of the attack. The two are not mutually exclusive. Like many others here I utterly condemn the attack, yet also dislike and disagree with the sort of speech that Charlie Hebdo produced though not all of it. I find that much of it is hate speech against people that hold religious beliefs and recognize the difference between the average person of faith and the wrongheaded hateful intolerance of some of a religion's clergy or the extremist faithful of a religion.

BUT, being a believer in free speech rights I also believe that regardless of how intolerant and hateful CH's publications are to me that they had the right to say/publish them according to France's laws concerning free speech. Just as I also believe that the KKK, Stormfront, Westborough Baptist Church and many other groups I disagree with that say intolerant things that are hateful still has the free speech rights to say them.

If one is to believe in free speech rights for all than one must also believe that things they deeply disagree with can be said. I also understand that having the rights of free speech means that you also have the responsibility of the effect your words may have and that saying things that are considered hateful and intolerant may be a risk not only to who says them but to uninvolved bystanders. Countering speech one disagrees with must always be non-violent and legal.

I find your OP to be vile in it's attempt to not only quash speech you disagree with, which is anti-free speech, but to also demonize anyone that MIGHT disagree with before they have said anything at all as well at attempt to assign meaning to their speech not yet said as being false and other than what they have not yet said. That is about as anti-free speech rights as it gets without violence. I thoroughly condemn your anti-free speech screed, BUT though DU is not a forum where there is the right of free speech I also believe that you have the right to say it regardless of how stupid, anti-free speech and blatant an attempt to control that it is.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
75. Your analogies fail because none of them ascribe culpability to the victim. Simply adding the word
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 08:04 AM
Jan 2015

"but" does not make it analogous. You might as well have written, "I don't condone gang rape but I like rice crispies."

Moreover, your would-be analogies also rely on stifling some action. If you would stifle vigilantes would you also stifle cartoonists?

Apart from that -- you certainly wrong a lot.

The debate finds us between a cartoonist and a killer. We can only stop one. Which way will we turn?

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
80. What a pant load
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 04:27 PM
Jan 2015

Now you're changing your own narrative from what you actually said in your OP. Which means even you recognize how wrong it is. If you believed in it yourself then you would have defended it instead of trying to make it into something entirely different than what it was.

Of course my analogies rely on stifling some action. That action is criminal violent action in the case of vigilante "justice" which is not free speech but a crime and morally wrong however understandable the desire may be. It isn't free speech any more than the terrorists killing workers at Charlie Hebdo and shoppers at Hyper Cacher was. I said I didn't condone it, which I don't because I recognize that not condoning something doesn't mean I'm stifling anyone's free speech as free speech has limits including violent retaliatory action. Even you recognize that vigilante "justice" that is violent is not free speech but a violent crime and agree that anyone who murders for revenge and/or anger - which is exactly what the terrorists did - isn't free speech but a violent crime the law and morality don't condone or allow. I could easily ask the same of you that if you would "stifle" a vigilante killer bent on revenge just as those terrorists were would you also want to "stifle" the free speech of cartoonists. Or did you ask such an absurd question because you actually believe that the violent crime of vigilante "justice" is an appropriate action?

I also don't condone attempts to blame the victim - and neither do you - though anyone that does has the free speech right to. Not condoning something doesn't mean you're stopping anyone from doing it or trying to, or are you confused about what the meaning of the word is? Not condoning some speech or action means that you disagree with it, not that you are trying to or want to stifle what non-violent speech is used. Your OP did attempt to stifle the free speech of anyone that that condemned the killings followed by "BUT" when you didn't even know what would be followed by that "BUT" or whether or not you would agree with it. And THAT is a blatant attempt to stifle free speech even that free speech that you would have agreed with had anyone disregarded your attempt to stifle them and said what they liked as I just did.

The debate is whatever one wants to make of it. You made it about trying to silence and demonize anyone that you might disagree with even before they said anything, and that's what I responded to as have others. Without question it was an attempt to stifle the free speech of anyone that you MIGHT disagree with even before they said anything.

There is no debate between a cartoonist and a killer. Every single person here has condemned the killers including me. As far as I've seen no one has said that the cartoonists should have been stopped from publishing their free speech including me even those of us that disagree with their message. We aren't going to be able to stop the killers because terrorists unfortunately can't always be discovered or stopped before they strike. There are always going to be terrorists as there always has been. In a perfect world we'd be able to stop all terrorists before they ever get the notion to be one or any other killer or violent criminal. It isn't a perfect world. No one but you is trying to debate choosing between stopping the terrorists or stopping CH's free speech.

I've had more than enough of your attempts to silence and demonize people here before they've said anything that you MIGHT disagree with and your ridiculous backpedaling to try to make it appear that your OP said something other than exactly what it did.

>>>CLICK<<<

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
81. If you insist on claiming my OP is about trying to silence the but monkeys than you are either
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 05:06 PM
Jan 2015

delusional or lying. Debate and criticism is not suppressing speech. You are currently engaged in a criticism of my OP; are you attempting to silence me?

If not, then by what arrogance of non-existent authority do you presume to assign such motives to me when I have repeatedly stated I have no motive except debate and criticism?

If it is your intent to silence me than: Go soak your head. You're a hypocrite and you don't get to tell me what what to say or how to act.

Either way, the sole deciding factor relies on the but monkeys themselves. If they are embarrassed by having their equivocation in the name of terrorism pointed out in public forums they are free to stop saying things that embarrass them -- or they can continue to say stupid stuff just as I and others are free to continue calling them on it.

Because, you see, freedom of speech.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
71. if people are allowed to criticize charlie hebdo, other people are allowed to criticize those people, too.
Tue Jan 13, 2015, 11:56 PM
Jan 2015

If criticism = telling someone to "shut up", how is what you are doing to the OP here any different?

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
58. Subordinate clauses are difficult for the sub-literate.
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 09:20 AM
Jan 2015

Subordinate clauses are difficult for the sub-literate. Next thing we know, 'however' and 'yet' will be indicative of supporting Hitler.

dawg

(10,626 posts)
66. I have more in common with Charlie Hebdo than I do with the terrorists, **BUT** ...
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 10:57 AM
Jan 2015

I have more in common with the millions of ordinary, non-murderous Muslims who were offended by the "satire" than I do with Charlie Hebdo. And I think that sort of nuance is an important part of the discussion we should be having.

I tend to view negatively any attempts to minimize discussion, enforce conformity of opinion, or deny nuance.

I guarantee you that the terrorists who perpetrated this attack are not big fans of "buts" either.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
67. ah. thank you dawgs. very good post. i have not really been in a lot of the threads.
Mon Jan 12, 2015, 11:00 AM
Jan 2015

pretty simple. murder is wrong.

but.... lol. i can not help see what you are saying, and how do i ignore that.

now. i am back out of this discussion. no buts about it cause i have things to do.

thank you for sending me off, experiencing reason.

Violet_Crumble

(36,002 posts)
73. But what about us HOWEVER monkeys?
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 12:03 AM
Jan 2015

I'm sick of us being neglected by both the but monkeys and the no but monkeys. Are we destined to live forever on the fringes of free speech flamefests?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
76. "Are we destined to live forever on the fringes of free speech flamefests?"
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 08:09 AM
Jan 2015

I don't know. All I do know is that there is no doubt in my mind that you are free to speak yours.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
77. The word but stands in direct opposition to black and white thinking.
Wed Jan 14, 2015, 09:55 AM
Jan 2015

It can also be used as a way for people to hedge their comments. Its use varies.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Some people just insist o...