Or, you know, they just didn't want to publish racist caricatures under the guise of satire.
Go away.
Untitled topic
11–20 of 65 posts
Re: undefined
#12Religious provocation is uncalled for.
Free expression, provided it does not infringe on the next guy's freedom, is fundamental to the survival of a democratic society.
Otherwise, we might just as well move to Saudi Arabia, or back to centuries long past.
Re: undefined
#13Or, you know, they just didn't want to publish racist caricatures under the guise of satire.
Probably this. Just because most people won't go on a shooting rampage over them doesn't mean the images aren't offensive to some people. No point throwing fuel on the fire.
Of course they are offensive to some people. That's the point. Offend and ridicule views which are ridiculous.
Re: undefined
#14That something offended religious extremist don't mean that it didn't offended non-extremists too. But if you keep offending them some could become extremist too eventually. Is that the final motivation?
Words and other speech are not a reasonable justification for extremism and violence. They might be claimed as one, but they are not.
It's also problematic to worry about the consequences of speech like that. What happens when people start warning you that publishing the truth will drive them to extremism? Of course publishers should consider how their speech will impact people, but they should not refrain from publishing just because they see potential for a negative impact.
Re: undefined
#15I like this solution to the problem: The Charlie X method http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-09/charlie-x-solution
Re: undefined
#16Or, you know, they just didn't want to publish racist caricatures under the guise of satire.
bigot not racist.
Re: undefined
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably this. Just because most people won't go on a shooting rampage over them doesn't mean the images aren't offensive to some people. No point throwing fuel on the fire.
Of course they are offensive to some people. That's the point. Offend and ridicule views which are ridiculous.
Your Islamophobia is showing.
Re: undefined
#18Or, you know, they just didn't want to publish racist caricatures under the guise of satire.
In cattle country, the law is "fence them out," ie. if you don't want your neighbors' cows grazing on your land, it's your job to fence them out, instead of his job to fence them in.
Claim: We need something analogous to "fence the out" for "being offended" if we want to construct a broadly participatory society, complete with free, open, and vibrant debate. In other words, perhaps our society should standardize on the convention that it is your job to not be offended by things, instead of other peoples' job to not offend you. Perhaps this might boil down to civilly agreeing to disagree.
Given a large number of religious/ideological groups and a larger number of issues with non-negligible probabilities of offending someone, it becomes likely that many statements in the public discourse will be offensive to someone.
We can model the situation binomially and compute the likelihood of at least one success (offending some group) in N trials, where N is the number of events in the public discourse per day (perhaps 10^5 in today's fractured media landscape) and the probability of offense is on average perhaps 1/(.001N). It's not hard to see that at least one success will probably happen every day. That's why I think we need a more robust system for dealing with this.
Re: undefined
#19Religious provocation is uncalled for.
Free expression, provided it does not infringe on the next guy's freedom, is fundamental to the survival of a democratic society. Otherwise, we might just as well move to Saudi Arabia, or back to centuries long past.
I think it is only denying freedom of expression if the guy asked for it to published in the NYT? Other people have already published it so it is already being published, and thus people are able to see it.
Re: undefined
#20Or, you know, they just didn't want to publish racist caricatures under the guise of satire.
Probably this. Just because most people won't go on a shooting rampage over them doesn't mean the images aren't offensive to some people. No point throwing fuel on the fire.
Does anyone made them to read it?