Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Charlie Hebdo Massacre Reactions: 'I'm All for Free Speech and Murder is Wrong, But…'

|

The massacre at the Paris offices of the venerable satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been met with near-universal condemnation, but a growing chorus of self-appointed arbiters of good taste are going public, following up cursory denunciations of the murders with caveats that Charlie Hebdo is a "provocative," "racist," "Islamophobic," "homophobic" publication who brought much of its trouble on itself.

A satirical cartoonist drew this.
Twitter/Carlos Latuff

Richard Seymour at Jacobin makes this point most succinctly in the final paragraph of his article: 

No, the offices of Charlie Hebdo should not be raided by gun-wielding murderers. No, journalists are not legitimate targets for killing. But no, we also shouldn't line up with the inevitable statist backlash against Muslims, or the ideological charge to defend a fetishized, racialized "secularism," or concede to the blackmail which forces us into solidarity with a racist institution.

Earlier in the piece, Seymour explains why he presents no evidence, or even argument, that Charlie Hebdo is a "racist institution":

I will not waste time arguing over this point here: I simply take it as read that — irrespective of whatever else it does, and whatever valid comment it makes — the way in which that publication represents Islam is racist.

Jacob Canfield at The Hooded Utilitarian puts it this way:

Nobody should have been killed over those cartoons.

Fuck those cartoons.

Canfield spends much of his word count sneering at Charlie Hebdo's white editorial staff for having the temerity to satirize Muslims and their prophet, and cites this quote from a BBC profile on Charlie Hebdo's murdered editor, Stephane "Charb" Charbonnier, as evidence that he's a "racist asshole":

Charb had strongly defended Charlie Hebdo's cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad.

"Muhammad isn't sacred to me," he told the Associated Press in 2012, after the magazine's offices had been fire-bombed.

"I don't blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law. I don't live under Koranic law."

Of the four sentences attributed to Charb, the first should seem obvious coming from a take-no-prisoners satirist, the second is a statement that he understands Charlie Hebdo's humor is not for everyone, the third is a fact, the fourth a refusal to be cowed by violent threats. A pretty low bar for "racist asshole," unless you think that "White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire, and needs to be called out," a sentiment that imposes a racial barrier of entry to engage in satire on certain groups of people, their politics, and religious iconography. 

Self-described "Geeky Porn Starlet/Lecturer/Presenter/Sex Critical Feminist" Kitty Stryker wrote:

So, I'm generally pretty anti-censorship. I mean fuck, I just worked on a porn where we gently poked fun at the new British porn content laws by enacting all of them in a playful, consensual space. I am a big fan of art, and using humour to hopefully make people think and change their minds.

That said, I do not believe that racist, homophobic language is satire. I think it's abusive, and I think it punches down, harshly and often. 

Later, the "generally pretty anti-censorship" Stryker explicitly puts to words what so many others have danced around:

I don't think that shooting up the Charlie Hebdo office was ethically Right with a capital R, ok? But I do think it's understandable.

Because censorship only comes from conservative moral scolds and the government. Massacring cartoonists is "understandable." These Social Justice Warriors must be very proud to be in the company of Catholic League President Bill Donahue, who yesterday opined:

"It is too bad that he didn't understand the role he played in his tragic death," said Donohue of Stephane Charbonnier, Charlie Hebdo's publisher." In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, 'Muhammad isn't sacred to me.' Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.

The Catholic League defends its own provocative speech in its mission statement, which they say is "motivated by the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment" and that they "work to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened." Like Seymour, Canfield and Stryker, Donahue supports "free speech" but only for some and to a point. 

On HuffPost Live's "Cocktail Chatter," The Daily Beast's David Freelander said "Free speech is about the world of ideas. It doesn't mean that you're engaging in that when you're being deliberately provocative." Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" was deliberately provocative and he learned the hard way about the West's tepid defense of free speech in the world of ideas. 

Finally, USA Today published as a counter-point to its own editorial, an op-ed from "radical Muslim cleric" Anjem Choudary, who skips the mealy-mouthed platitudes about the right to free expression and instead puts the blame on the French government for not stopping Charlie Hebdo from provoking Muslims, "thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk."

This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him." 

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

I would argue that lambasting a government for failing to abandon free speech in the face of a murderous heckler's veto is more offensive than any cartoon could ever be. But I am glad to see Choudary's abhorrent views laid bare in black and white to be reviled or defended and debated, peacefully, in the "world of ideas." His rationale that Charlie Hebdo bore a responsibility for yesterday's atrocity is more direct and honest than those who argue that certain subjects should be protected from satire, and that satirists need to qualify by race, gender and class before they take aim at these sacred cows.

NEXT: Criminal Justice Reform Will Be 'Centerpiece' of Congressional Black Caucus Agenda in 2015

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The massacre at the Paris offices of the venerable satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been met with near-universal condemnation, but a growing chorus of self-appointed arbiters of good taste are going public, following up cursory denunciations of the murders with caveats that Charlie Hebdo is a “provocative,” “racist,” “Islamophobic,” “homophobic” publication who brought much of its trouble on itself.

    Without even reading the rest of the article, I’m betting most of these “arbiters of good taste” are the same people who think we should teach all men not to rape.

    1. I was thinking the same thing – how many of these same people are the same stupid cunts who are always screaming on about “Teh patriachyzzzzz!!1!”

      Leftists are the lowest form of life on earth.

      1. Also, according to both Jacob Canfield and Noah Berlasky, it is racist to say you don’t want to live in a Muslim theocracy and we should not be allowed to criticize horrible ideas if the people who have those horrible ideas claim to be a religion.

        Especially if the religion in question mostly consists of brown or black people. It is racist for a white person to say that a black person is wrong about anything. The left has spoken.

        1. You mean ONLY if the religion in question mostly consists…

        2. Also, according to both Jacob Canfield and Noah Berlasky, it is racist to say you don’t want to live in a Muslim theocracy and we should not be allowed to criticize horrible ideas if the people who have those horrible ideas claim to be a religion.

          Fine. Fuck them, I’m racist. So what?

          1. The coopting of words’ meaning to control others’ thinking and mores, continues.

            If reporting objectively results in a truth that offends someone, that is not racist.

            However, the word is now being used to accuse anyone who does not agree with a particular political viewpoint.

            Under such criteria, we will all be racists soon.

            1. Too late! We already are.

            2. Gary T is a RACIST!!!!

          2. agreed

            Its amazing how intellectually bankrupt these “intellectuals” are.
            Ideas and ideologies compete in the arena and some of them get beat up and exposed for being hypocritical and stupid.

            If you can’t handle the competition, then your ideology/idea/religion obviously is hopelessly flawed and your ego won’t allow you to admit it

            Islam is horrenously flawed and is worthy of ridicule. It make a huge population absolutely miserable just like Socialism/Communism/Fascism has been- just ask the people oppressed by ISIS

        3. At this point is there any religion that doesn’t consist of mostly brown or black people? Mormons, maybe. At this point Christianity (particularly if you only count the truly devout) must be. Do East Asians count as brown people?

          1. Yellow.

            1. Hey, that’s racist.

              Jeesh, now they have me doing it too!

          2. Not even Mormons, most likely. More than half of their population is out of the USA these days, with most of that growth being in non-white areas of the world.

          3. Amish!

        4. Given that Islam is not a race, it escapes me how disparaging it can be equated with racism.

          Shows you the intellectual depth (or lack thereof) these kinds of people are bringing to the table.

          1. Most people are born into their religion, so it is not a completely free a choice as some make it out to be. But it still is not the same as race, and people can choose what to believe and how to act on their beliefs. If you accept that criticizing a religion is the same as racism, then it seems you would be just as guilty for criticizing a racist person who was born into a highly racist environment.

            1. While I agree with most of what you said, I will nitpick one point, and that is that “people can choose what to believe”. I don’t buy this. Beliefs can change, and this is what makes satire such as this a powerful tool. But they don’t change as a result of a wild hair up somebody’s ass.

              I can be holding something that looks like a brick and has the apparent heft of a brick, but (barring the right kind of evidence, like me smashing it against my own nose or at the very least telling you it’s not a real brick) no matter how much you try to convince yourself that it’s really made of foam rubber and I’m just a good mime, I bet you’ll still cover up if I make to throw it at your head.

              To be sure, one can make choices that influence beliefs (such as a choice to examine evidence and make a good-faith effort to understand it), but sane people don’t actually choose their beliefs.

          2. Ideas and culture are not created equal. But apparently if you can call your idea a religion and if the people promoting that idea are anything but a European ethnicity, then you’re a racist.

            If I am in fact a racist, and I may well be, it’s because at every turn I get reminded about how I need to check my privilege for being white. If I am a racist, it’s because the term is so broad as to include anyone who doesn’t hate themselves for being of European descent and doesn’t hate their ancestors and their culture for being European.

            The double standard is so prevalent that calling foul on people’s bigotry, real bigotry that is, is like pissing into the wind.

        5. I’m an Anglican, and I’m glad to hear this. Most of the Anglican Communion these days is found in Africa and Asia, so it’s a cinch that our denomination is now safe from ridicule as a result.

        6. ” It is racist for a white …”

          to exist.

      2. Try to calm down, pal. The Mohammedans aren’t coming to get you, nor are the Russians, nor are the Leftists. You’re just not that important. Learn that and you’ll enjoy life more.

    2. These “arbiters of good taste” must also include some of the U.S. academics, journalists, and silent commentators who have casually acquiesced in New York’s criminalization of gmail parodies under a variety of peculiar legal pretexts. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal satire case at:

      http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    3. No, it seems that everyone is a hypocrite:

      http://iroots.org/2015/01/08/c…..c-in-2009/

    4. NO, a whole lot of them are people who actually know what good taste means.

      Charlie Hebdo was racist, misogynistic, crude and vulgar. One should be able to say that because it is true.

      Just because someone is slaughtered by Islamists doesn’t magically turn them into saints.

      1. According to a contributor to _Charlie_ who was interviewed on France-Culture radio yesterday, the editorial meeting that ended with the murders of 12 people was discussing the preparation of an edition with an anti-racism theme.

        _Charlie_ was definitely crude and vulgar, but it was not misogyinistic and racist. That’s a bum rap largely perpetuated by people who are offended by the crudity and vulgarity. That kind of humor is a very old tradition, going back at least to Rabelais. If you don’t like the smell of shit, then don’t eat.

        Enjoy reading your politically correct, corporate-owned press.

  2. But I do think it’s understandable.

    What the fuck?

    1. I don’t think that shooting up the Charlie Hebdo office was ethically Right with a capital R, ok? But I do think it’s understandable.

      I don’t think that raping the provocatively dressed and acting female was ethically Right with a capital R, ok? But I do think it’s understandable…

      1. +1 pinball machine

        (awesome comment for reals)

      2. +1 pinball machine

        (awesome comment for reals)

        1. Comment so nice, Counterfly commended it twice.

      3. I made the same point to a coworker… Wrong is wrong.

        Don’t attempt to justify the worst possible types of transgressions with bullshit, blame-the-victim justifications.

        Also – FUCK YOU, lady. You and the other appeasist assholes were the types wringing your hands when the Nazis finally got around to stomping on you after Jews, Gypsies and Gays. “I never thought I’d be the one to suffer.” No SHIT. Well that’s exactly where your flexible, limp-wristed morals got you.

      4. Win. I am stealing that.

      5. Somebody made that point to her in the comments to her post. Her response was basically “OMG WHITE CIS MEN!”

        She’s a typical Tumblrina with a bit more of an audience.

          1. Well that’s what you get when shaming isn’t allowed.

            1. Fetish porn? Where’s John at on this?

          2. Ew. I’ll stick with Tristan Taormino for my feminist porn.

          3. Aaargh! That’s goin’ to replace the whale in me nightmares!

          4. Where’s the eye bleach station? Ack!
            Some things just can’t be unseen.

        1. I’ve been thinking about creating a fake SJW twitter account, gaining cred among the SJW community by parroting their absurdist belief system. And then, upon gaining their trust that I am indeed a bona fide SJW, beginning to lobby for pederast rights to see if I can get that turned into the SJW cause celeb in a year or two.

          1. What are you waiting for?

            1. I’ve been too busy working and paying bills. I guess that privilege check hasn’t come in the mail yet.

              1. That and the pederast hobby keeps him busy?

          2. What’s a pederast, Walter?

            1. 8 year olds, dude.

          3. SJWs already do this kind of thing to discredit movements that disagree with them.

      6. I read her response to that comment. Paraphrased, it was “White men have power but Muslims and women don’t. So it’s not understandable when white men do it, but it is understandable when Muslims do it.”

        When someone pointed out that the guys with the guns had the power, her “response”, if you can even call it that, was “The prison industrial complex? I agree.” No you stupid asshole, they meant the murderers!

        1. Fun fact: White men also have power in ISIS-held territories.

          1. Totally. Syria and Afghanistan lousy with cis privileged white men.

          2. The power to get their head forcefully removed from their shoulders?

            1. Umm, “Middle Eastern” men are technically/really Caucasian, so the point is accurate for Syria, Iraq, etc.

              Afghans now, that’s a bit different, they’re technically Asians (Southwest Asia and all) regardless of which ethnic group they belong to (Tadjik, Pashtun, Uzbek, etc.)

      7. I don’t think claiming someone raped me that didn’t is ethically Right with a capital R, ok? But I do think it’s understandable…

      8. How about:

        “I think that shooting up the Charlie Hebdo office was understandable, but I don’t think it was ethically Right”

        I think that rendition more properly conveys what that tweeter said.

        1. In a sense I DO think shooting up the Charlie Hebdo office was totally understandable. The people who did it are complete barbarians who desperately need to be dead. That’s easy enough to understand, isn’t it?

          1. That’s perhaps the most accurate version that I wish she’d meant. Islam seems to attract totalitarian scumbags who throw homicidal tantrums whenever someone, somewhere isn’t Muslim, so while this was a predictable and understandable event it was most certainly not a morally right one.

            1. “seems to attract totalitarian scumbags who throw homicidal tantrums whenever someone, somewhere isn’t Muslim”

              Whereas in the USA, all we do is throw homicidal tantrums when someone, somewhere doesn’t want to adopt our lifestyle.

        2. It was terribly gauche, like using the wrong fork at dinner.

      9. But it’s more like a guy telling a girl who he had raped (Algerians/Islamists) that they were sluts and then having the girl murder him. Sure, murdering is atrociously wrong but the situation is much more twisted and complex than one might see on the surface.

    2. It’s a meaningless adjective. Yes, I too “understand” why murderous ideologues murder – that’s what they do.

    3. The West continues to self-immolate.

    4. I hope Miss Kitty Stryker understands that many Muslims would be willing to kill her for what she does as well.

      What a stupid cunt.

    5. If this loathsome little cunt really understands then she also understands that those same people will cut her head off on live TV for what she does, given the chance.

      1. “Very funny.”

        /TBS

    6. Yep, there it is, naked and stupid, like the people who stumbled into Warty’s basement.

      Understandable HOW? Can she really imagine murdering people for offending her? If so, I’m sure we can expect great things from her in the future.

    7. “Predictable”, to some extent, yes, but “understandable” is seriously fucked up.

      These people are as brave as any Navy Seal, I think. How many Americans today would hear the story of Lenny Bruce’s obscenity trial and say, well he got what was coming to him? My impression is that we regard Bruce as having taken one for the team, and he is rightly remembered for it.

      Also, where the fuck was the all-seeing eye of French security the one time someone needed help? Oh, never mind… they probably wanted to see CH pay as badly as the terrorists did.

      If there were any justice we would grant these French posthumous recognition as naturalized Americans and First Amendment heroes.

    8. Many evil actions are “understandable”. I’m not sure what the relevance is, though.

  3. “It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death,” said Donohue of Stephane Charbonnier, Charlie Hebdo’s publisher.” In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, ‘Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.’ Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.

    So not holding Muhammad sacred = Narcissism.

    Boy these religio-fucks certainly have each others’ backs don’t they?

    1. Look, if you don’t believe in a power higher than yourself, you’re obviously a heathen with no morals.

      Where else are people supposed to get their arbitrary right/wrong system?

      1. Look, if you don’t believe in a power higher than yourself, you’re obviously a heathen with no morals.

        And without morals you’d probably murder someone just for pissing you off.

      2. Look, if you don’t believe in a power higher than yourself, you’re obviously a heathen with no morals.

        This sentence makes me want to strangle someone, I’ve heard it so often.

        1. The squeeze often engages with religious people, and they always ask him where he gets his moral compass, if not from religion? They literally do not understand having morals without some religious authority telling you what they should be.

          1. I understand that just fine. The problem is not “you can’t have a moral code without God”. You most certainly can be. In fact, you can have a wonderfully moral person in my view and still be an atheists.

            The problem is, without God, what makes you think your moral code is any better or worse than anyone else’ moral code? Yeah, I am sure your boyfriend is a nice guy and I personally would likely find his morals to my liking. But what can he say to those who think otherwise other than “well I like it this way?” Nothing really. It is find and all t hat he has all of these little morals and rules that he likes to live by. Whatever works for him. But without some kind of authority to appeal to, they are just that, his preferences.

            I would love to engage with your b/f sometime about religion and ethics.

            1. So, essentially you are saying the only reason you are a moral person is because you know that God is always looking over your shoulder, taking notes and judging you.
              You aren’t moral because of yourself, or your inherent goodness and innate love for other people, but rather because you don’t want to look bad for the Big Guy.

              Well unlike you, I don’t need a covert spying entity to keep me moral and good; I am that way naturally without being threatened into it.
              So who is the more good and moral person? The one who does it to keep his superiors happy, or the one who is innately good and considerate of others’ best interests, irrespective of who may be, or not, looking at him.

              1. A good person is one who does the right thing when they know no one is watching. Religious people, who know the Holy Roller is always spying, never has a chance to be truly good.

            2. He doesn’t think his moral standpoint is superior. He certainly thinks that his atheism is more logical, but that’s not the same thing. The point is that there are a significant number of people in the world that don’t understand how someone can have a moral code without having been told by a priest/book/other authority figure.

            3. The problem is, without God, what makes you think your moral code is any better or worse than anyone else’ moral code?

              That’s pretty ridiculous John.

              You judge a moral code by outcomes, the same way you judge anything else.

              Some moral codes will differ and still have the same outcomes. With that you can then feel free to judge based on intention or personal preference.

              But what can he say to those who think otherwise other than “well I like it this way?”

              And?

              But without some kind of authority to appeal to, they are just that, his preferences.

              You do realize that you’re saying the basis of your entire moral code is appeal to authority and nothing more?

              1. You judge a moral code by outcomes, the same way you judge anything else.

                ^^^This^^^

                I’ve adopted the moral code of my viking ancestors.

                Support those in the tribe and rape, kill and plunder everyone else.

                Worked out great for my people until some of the silly women folk adopted that Christian nonsense with its universal morality.

                We’ve been on nothing but a downslope since. So I’m bringing back the old ways that worked.

                1. Derp.

                  Because universal morality can’t exist without a skydaddy…

                  My moral code is the NAP and concept of self-ownership. It’s self-supporting, universal, and doesn’t need appeal to ultimate authority to defend it.

                  I can judge this against the viking code and determine its moral superiority based on mine not sanctioning murder and robbery.

                  If your morals are only defensible “because God told me so” you are severely morally impaired.

                2. Oh, so now Warty will be linking to you playing some death metal soon enough, eh?

                  1. If the universe is governed by nothing more than morally neutral physical laws (electro-weak, strong, gravity) then there is no right and wrong. If the universe is governed by a murdering cruel supernatural being than being kind or loving or compassionate is wrong.

                    Morality is determined by the highest power, end of story.

                    If all that acts (all causal factors) have no moral component, then the universe has no right nor wrong.

                    Electromagnetism (and science’s other universal and only laws) doesn’t care about morals.

                    How do you get from a morally neutral set of causal agents to right/wrong? You can’t.

                    Morality is unpossible without metaphysical souls, or morally aware/discriminant universal laws. Electromagnetism doesn’t discriminate on whether you are nice or a jerk. It is a constant, it doesn’t discriminate on morals period.

                    Morality is a function of power, you cannot be responsible for that which you do not control. Atheism says there are only 3 powers in the universe. Electro-weak, strong, and gravity. None of these give a shit about morality, and none of them are uniquely controlled by you, or controlled by anyone for that matter, they operate without volition in constancy.

                    Which is ideologically a problem for science atheists, cuz they believe those 3 laws are the only game in town. No supernatural soul with morally congnizant causal effect on reality.

                    1. ‘Physically causal’ ‘morally-conscious’ forces are requisite for right and wrong to exist in a universe. Theists often call this a spirit.

                      If ‘all that acts’ is morally ambivalent, then the entire universe is morally neutral. In science, no physical law cares whether consent was achieved before sex, and nothing occurs beyond the (morally neutral) discriminating influence of physical law.

                      In science’s greed-lust to categorize and arrogance to cock-block metaphysics, they have created an ideological construct of the universe in which morality is unpossible.

                      I’m not saying its logically impossible for there to be no soul, I’m saying it’s logically impossible for soulless ‘persons’ to have a moral dimension. It’s pretty obvious when working with simplistic computer programs (no soul), not so much when working with ‘biological machines’.

                    2. Greg Gutfelt’s Nutpunch|1.8.15 @ 5:42PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      …gibberish…

                      Morality can only exist by appeal to authority. Uh-huh.

                      You Christian apologetics and your murdering of Kant are absolutely hilarious.

                    3. It only can. And Kant was wrong. The categorical imperative was ridiculous. How can anyone who has read Nietzsche still believe in Kant? No one takes that shit seriously anymore, nor should they.

                      Why do I do right, by virtue of a virtue. Yeah, whatever.

                    4. It only can.

                      To the depraved, sure.

                      The categorical imperative was ridiculous.

                      Says you. Given your presentation of motherfucking Nietzsche of all fucking people to defend your skydaddy bullshit your credibility is, shall we say, shit.

                      How can anyone who has read Nietzsche still believe in Kant?

                      Pretty readily, I think Nietzsche was full of shit. Not only is he full of shit, much of his other thoughts are demonstrably evil. They were the intellectual seeds of Nazism, Communism, and (to a lesser extent) progressivism.

                      It is truly fucking hilarious that you use him to defend your religiosity. Have you read him?

                      No one takes that shit seriously anymore, nor should they.

                      Anybody who has actually read Nietzsche and didn’t just choose to ignore 90% of what he wrote wouldn’t take God or religion seriously either.

                      Why do I do right, by virtue of a virtue. Yeah, whatever.

                      Yeah John, you’ve already told us you’d have no moral compass if it weren’t for a Skydaddy telling you what to do.

                      You are to morality and God what Tony is to rights and government.

            4. But without some kind of authority to appeal to, they are just that, his preferences.

              Well, belief in God runs into the same problem. That is to say, the problem with a One True God is that there are so damned many of them.

              1. The abyss sucks Bill. What can I tell you.

                1. The abyss sucks Bill. What can I tell you.

                  So the Christian says his God tells him to love the unbelievers and bear any cross, but the Muslim says his God (who he contends is the same God BTW) that he must bring the unbelievers under submission and kill those who resist.

                  Tell me John, how do you play the skydaddy morality superiority game with that?

                  You can’t use deontological ethics because you’ve already said they’re ridiculous and “nobody takes that shit seriously anymore.”

            5. Morality is based in biology. It’s been proven that empathy exists in creatures as lowly as the mouse.

              Religion codified morality, but it didn’t invent it. Religion may even help to “enforce” morality on those without internal and/or taught moral systems, but again, it invented nothing moral. (And one could argue endlessly how much of that “enforcement” is due to social, rather than exactly religious, pressures.)

              So yes, morality is mostly preference. And it’s ultimately individual and subjective in nature, despite its basis in biology. And yet we have relatively few atrocities, relatively MANY instances of empathy and respect for other people.

              Isn’t that uplifting?

          2. The problem with this is that he does come from another planet. He grew up in a society utterly saturated in a moral code based upon religious authority.

            So his moral code is based on that–even if he, himself, claims atheism.

            1. ‘does NOT’ come from another planet.

              You know, an ‘edit’ button would be nice

    2. This just in – Bill Donohue is a retard and a douche.

      Fucker cost me a year and a half of Opie and Anthony.

      1. Yeah his name is forever tarnished for me over that. Did you hear when they had him on a few years later or whenever it was and he was criticizing Lucky Louie for doing an episode about Louie and his wife wanting to make sure their sex life is satisfying before having another kid? And that ridiculous example he came up with somehow about someone fellating a statue of MLK?

        1. Yep – O&A sort of made up with Donohue, but my man Ronnie B still has no use for him.

    3. Hey, you can’t blame Donohue for responding to incentives. If he can start sowing some fear that Opus Dei members will start blowing away people, then maybe he’ll be more successful at suppressing art works he doesn’t like.

      1. ^This.

    4. Except if Catholics actually started behaving like these backwards assholes, the Progressives, atheists, socialists, et al. wouldn’t just sit back making feeble excuses and offering vague platitudes about “solidarity” with French cartoonists; They’d be demanding that churches be burned, their wealth confiscated, and priests be hanged in the streets like their Jacobin predecessors once did.

      1. If the Catholic Church condoned this type of behavior, there would be a lot less Catholics.

      2. They might be demanding. At least until a couple of the more prominent demanders wound up corpses with their tongues cut out. Then you’d be flabbergasted how quickly their attitudes changed. They’d all become lifelong Catholics in good standing.

    5. I wonder what Donohue’s position on prayer in schools is. Or stuff like having a sculpture of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse.

  4. “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

    Luckily, I’m a Prophet.

    1. “So, you’re a Prophet too! Jolly good!”

    2. I am a Prophet in the Church of Bacon.

    3. I have thousands of orphans working in my diamond mines who are prophets…. oh wait, never mind, they’re profits.

    4. My beliefs are non-prophet.

    5. Well then, make sure you don’t insult yourself.
      The paradox would make the universe implode.

  5. Anyway, this just goes back to the idiocy of the “Oh, I’m totally for free speech – but racist/sexist/whatever speech isn’t free speech at all!” bullshit that seems to be all the rage among the left these days.

    All speech is equal, but some speech is more equal than others.

  6. I don’t think that shooting up the Charlie Hebdo office was ethically Right with a capital R, ok? But I do think it’s understandable.

    Fuck this dumb whore. She’d be swinging from a tree if these fucks had their way, and she has the gall to defend them? Moron.

    1. Anyone want to put up some money to send her plane tickets to Syria?

      1. Hell, Syria is a liberal paradise compared to some of its neighbors. I say a one-way ticket to Riyadh.

    2. You mean buried up to her neck for some rocky target practice?

  7. That can’t be a real Carlos Latuff cartoon. It doesn’t pornographically show any Jews killing and/or being killed.

    1. Loved you in Red Zone Cuba!

      1. Don’t lie. Nobody loved anything from Red Zone Cuba.

  8. The assholes on the left in places like the Jacobin are totally okay with oppression and censorship. They are just not okay with it being enforced via the vulgar means of masked men armed with AK 47s murdering people. They want the censorship to be done by uniformed men showing up at the office and imprisoning people or various mobs showing up and burning the office down.

    That is all that is going on here. And also understand, these people have no respect for religion or people’s feelings or really give a shit about racial hatred. They fucking love racial hatred, as long as it it directed towards the proper target. They think insulting Christianity and making any expression of it, is fabulous. They only object to insulting Islam because they think doing so furthers their sick politics.

    Make no mistake, people like Richard Seymore and Canfield are scum. I have more respect for the assholes who committed these murders than I do for Seymore and Canfield. The murders may be evil, but at least they are honest about who they are and what they want. Unlike Canfield who do nothing but lie and hide their real goals and real motives.

    1. There’s a slimy element of racism and self-loathing anti-imperialism too. Brown people can’t be as morally culpable as Europeans, they’re oppressed.

      1. Totally. People and human life are of now value to these people. Muslims are just a tool to be used and nothing else.

        I am not kidding when I say I have more respect for the murderers than I do for Seymoure and Canfield.

        1. I mean, say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism Radical Islam, but at least it’s an ethos!

    2. I’ll always have more respect for the guy pulling the trigger than the pussy behind him who doesn’t want to bloody his own hands. If some kind of repulsive “hate speech” ban is ever enacted here, how will it be enforced? By the power of the state. And, should that power be resisted, the state will respond with deadly force. You end up in the same place, but at least one path has the decency to be up-front about what it is doing.

      1. You got it Radar. If it were up to Canfield an Seymour, those cartoons would have been criminal. And if a SWAT team had showed up to arrest Habdo and either intentionally or accidentally murdered him, both of them would think such a result to be right and just.

        1. No, the swat guys would never murder them, need a show trial, where the evil doers repent before a panel of judges, who fairly and judiciously condem them to a horrible death worthy of their crimes.

    3. Of course, if a Jewish terrorist bombed a mosque because the Imam actually spewed anitisemitism (let’s say he stopped just short of advocating for violence), then the left will LOUDLY insist that the imam had his “right to free speech”.

      I said this before the left does not care about liberty. Their objective is “equality” for whatever passes as the oppressed class in their mind. Liberty benefits wealthy corporations, satirists who offends, and men accused of rape. That won’t fly for them.

      When something like happens, the FIRST reaction that registers in their mind is “How will the right manipulate this for their gain” or “We have to stop the coming hate crimes on Muslims.” The role of victim or oppressor are readily set in stone for every occasion.

      1. Actually, since in your hypothetical it’s an imam spouting antisemitism, he could openly, explicitly call for the indiscriminate slaughter of Jews, or any non-muslims, and they would still defend “his right to free speech.”

        1. Could? This shit happens on a regular basis.

  9. Geeky Porn Starlet/Lecturer/Presenter/Sex Critical Feminist

    I don’t know what any of those things are, but I hate all of them.

    1. Geeky porn starlet sounds ok.

        1. She should walk around Iran dressed like that.

          1. Quick! Narrow them completely!

              1. Good movie title.

        2. WHYYYY? WHY WOULD YOU POST THAT?

          ::gouges out own eyes with plastic spork::

        3. I don’t think I could drink enough to jump on that grenade.

        4. SugarFree,

          Only a real monster would post that.

        5. *shudders uncontrollably for the rest of the day*

        6. That is not a porn starlet. That is what’s known to people with functioning eyes as a “hambeast”.

          -jcr

          1. A porn black holelet? dwarf planetlet? Asteroidlet? Moonlet? Piece of the space shuttle burning up in re-entrylet?

            1. Wait…How did she become a “porn star”? Did she just decide that she’d put up some solo videos online? :Voila!: A pornstar is born?

              See, this is where letting anyone with a computer claim the title of journalist leads!

              /i haz a sad 🙁

  10. I wonder what the reactions would have been if somebody in that office had returned fire?

    1. If someone in that office had gotten the drop on these assholes and murdered every one of them before they had a chance to do any harm, the reaction would have been somewhere in the range of “nothing to see here” or “evil racists murder innocent Muslims”.

    2. Didn’t they have a guard there? Was he armed?

      1. Armed guards? Is that a thing they do in countries where no one is allowed to have guns?

        I would be so pissed if I had to rely on some private/public security goon for my safety, nevermind having to add him to the payroll.

        1. Even if they could, how is that an answer? Is having to live under constant armed as a price of free expression in any way being free? Fuck that. The solution is not armed guards. The solution is to do something about the people who think it is okay to murder someone over a cartoon.

          1. Just out of curiosity, John, what “something” do you suggest?

            1. Goddamn, FdA, SOMETHING! DOOOOO SOMETHING!!!

              1. Yes, yes you do. See my suggestion below. France should have a national, piss on the Koran day where every patriotic Frenchman pisses on the Koran and laughs at Muhammad. What are the Muslims going to do? Murder everyone? Make them understand that nothing they do is going to change society or make it cater to their sensibilities.

                1. Make them understand that nothing they do is going to change society or make it cater to their sensibilities.

                  Muslims view this exactly the same way.

                  1. Muslims view this exactly the same way.

                    Then one side has to give way. The question is, which side do you want to give way? I sure don’t it to be the ordinary people of France.

              2. Was just thinking about this. The right thing to do is to hunt down the perps, try them and bring them to justice.

                Doing anything more than that, makes the situation worse. You either escalate it, or take away rights of the citizen (in trying to prevent it). Let your criminal justice system work, ignore politicians who want to save you from this ever happening again and as Riven says, if you want more protection than that…arm yourself.

                1. No Fransisco, doing nothing makes the situation worse. The people who did this don’t care if they die. And the ones who support them are also happy to die and are undeterred by the threat of death or imprisonment.

                  The rest of us, however, are deterred by the threat of death. And the French can have all of the marches they want. But the truth is no one is going to be publishing Muhammad cartoons in the future. The terrorists made their point and will continue to make it. Hunting down these particular guys, while certainly necessary, will do nothing towards stopping this in the future.

                  And arming yourself is not an answer. You can’t kill all of them. I am a good shot and all, but they only have to get the drop on me once. This is only the beginning. It is just a matter of time before they decide to murder someone else for doing something they don’t like and France will become a very unfree and lousy place.

                  The only answer is to absolutely crush any idea that this tactic works. And the way to do that is through a massive backlash and mass insulting of Islam at any and every opportunity.

                  1. The only answer is to absolutely crush any idea that this tactic works.

                    But then this becomes the answer to every “problem.”

                    “Oh, so you think you have free speech? You dun goofed.”

                    1. I think it is the solution to every problem anon. I like the idea of people acting freely and in such numbers that their prospective oppressors can do nothing to stop it. What is wrong with that?

                    2. Because eventually that power is loaned out to Government, and when Government gets power it doesn’t relinquish it.

                    3. That, and when you said “Crush,” I assumed violence was implied.

                    4. What power? Do people or do they not have a right to insult Muhammad and Islam? If they do, then millions of them doing it every day is not wrong. People exercising their rights is not creating some power to be loaned to the government.

                      And by crush I meant banish any idea or hope they have of terrorizing the rest of society into acting as they wish.

                    5. John is correct that the cultural backlash to this incident must be overwhelming. Otherwise, we stand to completely lose what little remains of one of the pillars of a free society. Ridicule, verbal abuse, mockery, and outright verbal challenges to their belief system are all fair game. The alternative is to wait until it becomes a full-blown orgy of violence, which it eventually will if not settled by other means.

                  2. The only answer is to absolutely crush any idea that this tactic works. And the way to do that is through a massive backlash and mass insulting of Islam at any and every opportunity.

                    More specifically, Choudary and those of his kind should be ridiculed to the ends of this earth.

                    1. THIS^^^^^^

                  3. No Fransisco, doing nothing makes the situation worse.

                    I didn’t say to do nothing. I said the perps should be brought to justice.

                    That’s what justice is. You pay a price for your actions. That’s why that blindfolded bitch has balanced scales in her hand.

                    I don’t have an issue with your public backlash in support of free speech, however. That’s probably a good, non governmental, response.

                    What I DON’T want to see, is the Peter King’s of the world using this for more cameras, more profiling, more cops, more security state…less freedom.

                    1. What I DON’T want to see, is the Peter King’s of the world using this for more cameras, more profiling, more cops, more security state…less freedom.

                      I concur and add, or to justify an invasion (or whatever) of a country that didn’t have anything to do with the attack.

                    2. That’s what justice is. You pay a price for your actions. That’s why that blindfolded bitch has balanced scales in her hand.

                      Except that doesn’t work when the people you are dealing with don’t care if they die.

                      Go hunt them down. Have fun. Shoot them, do a happy dance on their bodies. And none of the people who support them will give a shit and will be happy to go and kill the next person who draws a bad cartoon.

                      JUSTICE isn’t going to help us.

                    3. What I DON’T want to see, is the Peter King’s of the world using this for more cameras, more profiling, more cops, more security state…less freedom.

                      Of course, that’s that asshole’s answer to pretty much anything.

            2. That is a good question. It points to the dilemma that this kind of evil presents us with.

              Here we have a group of people who are living in our society and using their free speech rights to advocate the killing of anyone who says something that offends them. And indeed, people are acting on it such that saying the wrong thing can get you killed. What do you do?

              If you do nothing, you lose your freedom of speech. And worse, once empowered, it won’t stop with speech. These people will move on to other things and through the use of terror intimidate people out of doing other things. So, do nothing, face the real risk of losing your freedom.

              Do something and ban people from advocating this or just deport the people who support it and you have clearly violated your own principles. They have forced you to either let them take your freedom via terror or stop them but in the process violate your own principles.

            3. It is a shitty dilemma any way you look at it. My view is that you can only have a free society if you have a society that wants such. You can’t have a free society if a significant portion of it not only doesn’t want it to be free but also is willing to kill and terrorize to ensure it isn’t.

              My first choice would be for massive civic action by the majority. The result of this should be that Muhammad is insulted every single day thousands and thousands of times by thousands of people such that the group of Muslims who think it is okay to murder people over this kind of stuff are overwhelmed by the actions of the majority they are left powerless and give up their cause.

              1. John, I think you’re presenting yourself with a false dilemma. There’s always a third (or more) choice; for me, I just prefer to shoot any uppity muslims.

                1. Yes anon. You can kill them all. And indeed, if this continues as it is, I would bet on that being the outcome of all of this. Muslims are only 7% of the population in France.

                  That is why this kind of thing is over the long term a bigger tragedy for Muslims than anyone else. If Muslims can’t live in the modern world, the modern will will do to them what it has done to everyone else whose existence was incomtatable with it.

                  1. It is a shame for those that believe it’s a truly peaceful religion; however, I can’t believe there are really very many of those muslims around, or they’d root it out of their own communities.

                  2. Why would you seek punish a collective group for the actions of individuals?

                    Doesn’t justice demand that your punish only the guilty?

                    How is blaming Muslims for this any different than blaming Christians for abortion clinic bombings?

                    1. Why would you seek punish a collective group for the actions of individuals?

                      How am I “punishing” anyone? Are Muslims being harmed? Being sent to jail? Beat up?

                      My or the entire nation insulting Islam isn’t harming Muslims. Indeed, that is the entire point, words do not harm you in such a way that justifies you committing violence over it.

                      If Muslims can’t take the thought of millions of people wiping their asses with the Koran every morning, too fucking bad. It will be a good education for them in what it means to live in a free society.

                    2. I am not blaming Muslims for anything Fransisco. I am simply saying that our freedom to criticize them and their religion is being threatened and the only answer to that threat is for everyone to exercise that right in a public and daily manner until the threat passes.

                      That is not blaming Muslims for it or doing anything to harm them. It is just exercising mass civil action to preserve our freedoms.

                    3. That was in response to:

                      I just prefer to shoot any uppity muslims.

                    4. My apologies Fransisco. I do not advocate shooting Muslims over this.

                    5. ‘uppity’, not ‘all’.

                      I’d class the Hebdo shooters as examples of ‘uppity’.

        2. They had armed guards for a while and then did away with them because they thought they didn’t need them anymore.

      2. Yes, he yelled at them…in French.

        That showed em!

        1. “Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!”

          1. did he fart in their general direction?

        2. I had a guy yell at me in french once. I couldn’t stop myself from laughing at the little french guy throwing a tantrum.

          1. On the Paris Metro many years ago, a French chick got upset over a roaming busker. She stood up and yelled “You go suck yourself, non?” It was all kinds of awesome.

      3. Dude, it’s France. The entire place is a gun-free zone.

  11. Actually, I think their message is more “I fully support free expression for everybody – but not to the point where these nut job fanatics will come after me for blasphemy.”

    Anyone who adds a weaselly caveat about how this is understandable is actually just scared that if they don’t the killers will be after them next.

    They should just come out and beg for their life and admit they are scared of the bad men.

  12. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

    However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

    I, as a non Muslim insult Muhammad ever single day of my existence. Given this fact and this guy’s assertion that it is totally understandable why some number of Muslims will see it as their duty to murder me for that, why then am I not free to murder any Muslim I run into out of self defense? How am I to know if they are there to do their duty and murder me or not?

    Sorry, but it is not mine or anyone else’ duty to die for your delicate sensibilities.

    1. Let me insult Muhammad a little more directly.

      Fuck you Muhammad for creating a religion based on misogyny, intimidation, and violence. A religion which cannot elevate its adherents over the level of savages that believe printed words can stain the purity of their god, a vengeful and intolerant being.

      1. I’m pretty sure some Muslims are elevated over the level of savages by their religion. This doesn’t have to devolve into collective guilt.

        1. No it doesn’t, you’re correct. I’m crossing the line. My intention is to tweak the Islamists who believe that Hebdo had it coming (not that any are actually reading this).

          Choudary and others of his ilk can kiss my Kafir ass. So long as they rationalize murder in response to words, they deserve to be insulted. Their beliefs that enable that behavior deserve to be insulted.

          1. Besides which, I figure I’ll make it to Kizone’s page with that comment.

        2. Yeah Bo-Bo, ride to the defense of the totally indefensible, you idiotic sack of shit.

          1. Saying that not every one in a billion person movement should be stuck with the acts of others in that movement would be indefensible to you I guess.

            1. I’m not talking about the people you dissembling jackass, I’m talking about the ideology.

              1. What is “the” ideology here?

                1. Oh, Red knows. Dude’s read the Penguin edition Koran and the hadith, you know?

              2. And I guess you know the ideology better than the millions of practicioners who insist it doesn’t compel the awful acts you and I both abhor?

                Here’s what I’m betting: you’re less informed and objective about it than you think.

                1. The mistake is in treating Islam as a monolithic ideology. Hell, they eagerly fight wars with EACH OTHER over differences in ideology. Now plenty of Muslims live in peace and want to do so. But a sizeable fraction adheres to a version of the ideology that commands murder and support for those that do it. There is nothing wrong with calling that out as evil, or with recognizing that it isn’t just some tiny offshoot.

                  1. There is nothing wrong with calling that out as evil

                    There is also nothing wrong with challenging the belief system that engenders that behavior. Why should it be off-limits? Just because it is a faith shouldn’t free it from criticism.

                    1. There is also nothing wrong with challenging the belief system that engenders that behavior.

                      Agreed. I was jumping into the Bo vs Red

                2. And I guess you know the ideology better than the millions of practicioners who insist it doesn’t compel the awful acts you and I both abhor?

                  Too bad for them that the only people who can copiously quote from the founding documents, and have the overwhelming majority of the religion’s scholars on their side are the ones who engage in or defend this sort of shit.

                  Here’s what I’m betting: you’re less informed and objective about it than you think.

                  Again with the lack of self-awareness.

                  1. I like how your last line is a perfect response to the first paragraph you wrote.

                    What do you know about Islam and it’s many variants? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you don’t know Arabic, correct? You haven’t lived among Muslims or studied their Scriptures and scholarly works, etc.

                    You’ve read some English translations of some of their Scripture, you found awful things in there, and you’re convinced that’s the philosophy. And then there are all these people who have done far more than that and who profess and live the philosophy telling you ‘no, that’s not it.’ But of course YOU know better.

                    1. I don’t know arabic. No.

                      But I know the Quran. I read it first after reading Haley’s Malcolm X. Before muslim hate became a national pastime.

                      I’ve got three different translations.

                      And I could see the attraction.

                      But all the horrible stuff is in there. And the faith is designed as a conquering one.

                      And I do know the ideology better than millions of adherents–because millions of muslims can’t read. For them, the Quran is spoken word only.

                      But–and most importantly, Red was taking issue with the ideology itself, and the founder–not with individual muslims. So no collective blame was laid–only blame directed at a faith that does, in fact, compel it’s adherents to be at war with all non -believers

                    2. Give me a goddamn break. Islam is unequivocal about using violence to expand and enforce its fucked up standards. Muhammad is supposed to be the paragon of behavior in Islam, and he was a fucked up murdering pedophile. Hundreds and hundreds of years of Islamic jurisprudence supports violent Jihad, as well as ‘modern’ Islamic scholars in Islamic countries (where they don’t have to speak using taqiyya). Of course the thousands of victims of this pre-modern cult, I mean, religion of peace, speak louder than even the most halal motherfuckers ever could. But, you know, if they could just get a job at a McDonald’s or get those dirty joos off their scrap of desert then they would all play nice and forget this Jihad nonsense, right?

                    3. Above aimed at Bo. Aza is right – no excuse for collective blaming, but if someone is a practicing Muslim I view them as anyone else who holds disgusting beliefs.

            2. And no one in that billion person movement who’s not a complete fucking asshole, by definition, is going to be in the least bit hurt that someone responded with outrage and contempt for his religion after a couple of guys were murdered in its name.

        3. Except that, the ‘moderate’ or ‘peaceful’ Muslims don’t seem to be doing anything about taking their religion back from the whackos, or trying to reform it to move forward.

          1. I don’t think that’s true. Muslims around the world have denounced this act. And in a broader sense, there’s a fair amount of Muslims fighting and dying in actions against Islamic extremists around the world.

            1. If all they can do is denounce then they aren’t terribly serious about addressing the menace. Actions speak louder than words.

              1. “there’s a fair amount of Muslims fighting and dying in actions against Islamic extremists around the world.”

                1. Not doing much good, is it? Why is that?

                  1. What more should they be doing other than denouncing, fighting and dying?

            2. It doesn’t matter. Their religious beliefs, their right to speak and demonstrate, their rights to all of this is protected in a free society–regardless of whether their religion, speech, assemblies, and protests are of benefit to society.

              Respecting every individual’s rights is generally better for society, but the respect any specific right should never depend on whether respecting it is good or bad for society.

              I don’t know that Scientology or midget pr0n is a net benefit to society either. Maybe they’re a net harm, but so what?

              1. I imagine midget pr0n is a little hard to get through…

              2. Midget porn and to a lesser extent Scientology, aren’t hellbent on destroying your society and murdering your neighbors.

                1. “Midget porn and to a lesser extent Scientology, aren’t hellbent on destroying your society and murdering your neighbors.”

                  As a general rule, neither are Muslims.

                  You should drop by a mosque sometime.

                  …either that or see a psychiatrist. I understand they’re having a lot of success treating paranoia with pharmaceuticals these days.

            3. I don’t think that’s true. Muslims around the world have denounced this act. And in a broader sense, there’s a fair amount of Muslims fighting and dying in actions against Islamic extremists around the world.

              Yes it’s just a tiny minority of extremists right?

          2. This is Not the Path to Paradise: Response to ISIS
            http://binbayyah.net/english/2…..e-to-isis/

            Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a ‘heinous crime’ under sharia law
            http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..sharia-law

            1. Second link is this guy.

              Read his proclamations, he only seems to have a problem with killing kaffir if they are living “under the protection of Muslims.” Translation: Subjugated.

          3. Another:

            Prominent Muslim Sheik Issues Fatwa Against ISIS Violence
            http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/…..s-violence

              1. That’s him. From the NPR story:

                “Still, bin Bayyah is somewhat controversial in the U.S. His detractors say he’s anti-Semitic and that he has called the killing of American soldiers in Iraq justified. Those criticisms are linked to his role as a vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, an organization headquartered in Qatar and headed by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Al-Qaradawi is an Egyptian theologian who has close links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

                “And while bin Bayyah has never formally broken with al-Qaradawi, he said he left the International Union of Muslim Scholars a year ago because he didn’t agree with many of the group’s positions. He added that he tried to change the group from the inside and decided he could be more effective starting his own organization to promote peace.”

                1. “And while bin Bayyah has never formally broken with al-Qaradawi, he said he left the International Union of Muslim Scholars a year ago because he didn’t agree with many of the group’s positions. He added that he tried to change the group from the inside and decided he could be more effective starting his own organization to promote peace.”

                  Hmmm.

                  If he’s to be taken at face value I wish him the best of luck, he’ll need it.

          4. Just today:

            Sultan of Sokoto calls for end to insurgency
            http://www.vanguardngr.com/201…..nsurgency/

          5. Some thoughts on this today from Mona Shadia, over at HuffPo

            “There’s an ongoing debate within the American Muslim community on whether or not Muslims should condemn such attacks in the name of Islam. There’s an argument that Christians and Jews and Buddhists never have to go out in full force and condemn acts done in the name of their respective religions. Even though, like with the Paris massacre case, those who do twist and turn religious texts to justify these actions. There is an argument that in condemning these acts we are admitting that it is done on behalf of Islam, that we are responsible and we are attaching guilt and shame to ourselves and Islam. There is an argument that the west has much more to apologize for its acts of genocide and war in the Middle East and other places. There’s an argument that in expecting Muslims to apologize, we are subjugated by the west and held in a catch-22 scenario of having to apologize, even though these acts have nothing to do with our religion.

            “And then there are those who argue that we Muslims must condemn these actions, not to please anyone but to remain proactive and in charge of our destiny. This is the side of argument to which I belong.”

            1. Not much “twisting” of Islamic text needed to justify violence.

            2. She is lying to the sub-human infidels – nothing new here. All those rampaging Christians, you know, killing people or marching in support of the same for insulting Jesus. Or those damn Buddhists! Their a menace!

  13. No, journalists are not legitimate targets for killing.

    There it is.

    “NOOOOOOOOO, not me. I’m special. Besides, I’m just asking questions.”

    1. Everyone else, however, apparently is. If Hebdo has just been some loud mouth wearing a T-Shirt, murdering him would have been perfectly okay I guess.

    2. That did seem like an odd comment.

      Who are legitimate targets for killing?

    3. But, but, but…muh TEAM! We’re like totes speshul and everything! We write and take pictures and stuff!

  14. It would be reasonable to say that Hebdo was being somewhat foolish and inviting trouble. I can certainly imagine family members and those close to him being angry that he had endangered himself and others that way.

    That is not the equivalent of saying that he brought the trouble on himself and that he deserved what he got, which is what most of these people are actually saying.

    or concede to the blackmail which forces us into solidarity with a racist institution

    That is the tell right there. They’re more concerned with appearances than principles. They just can’t bring themselves to admit that they have common ground with someone they find distasteful. Their remorse is not for Hebdo, their remorse is for having to defend his rights.

    1. They have no principles. And you are right that is the tell. They are saying “we would rather let murderers determine what can and cannot be said than have to defend people we don’t like.”

      They are just fascists. As I say above, they are utter scum.

    2. or concede to the blackmail which forces us into solidarity with a racist institution

      But they’ll happily concede to the blackmail of a murderous ideology that at its very core is thoroughly and irredeemably evil.

      Islam is philosophically indistinguishable from Nazism or Communism and should be treated as such. It’s practioners should be viewed with the same contempt and distrust one would have of neo-Nazis.

      1. Oh boy, more collective guilt.

        1. Oh boy, more collective guilt.

          Holy shit, you are the most unself-aware poster here.

          Would you say the same thing about members of the Nazi Party vis-a-vis the Holocaust?

          1. I don’t think Islam=the Nazi Party. It’s a religion of around a billion people I think, and while it has some very bad actors I’m not going to say the entire philosophy is like that when at least a good chunk of the people following seem to be decent.

            1. So, it’s ~1 billion people and less than a rounding error of bad actors. 1 billion vs. nothing. And yet the 1 billion does nothing to eliminate the bad actors. Why is that?

            2. You not going to say it because you are a coward who is completely out of his depth.

              Start with the Koran (taking note of the fact that the suras are not arranged chronologically and keeping in mind the concept of abrogation), then read the sunnah, then the hadith.

              The ideology itself is the fucking problem. The decency of the people “following” it is the degree to which they aren’t actually following its tenets.

              1. I’m not going to say it because I’m not an uninformed, biased crypto-collectivist like you.

                I’ve read the Koran before. Does it have awful stuff in it? Sure. Did I find it to be much worse than the Old Testament? Nope. Both have plenty of stuff in it that extremists could use to justify awful things.

                More importantly I have first and second hand knowledge of lots of Muslims who live decent lives.

                1. I’m not going to say it because I’m not an uninformed, biased crypto-collectivist like you.

                  Except I’m not collectivizing you lying piece of shit. I’m attacking the philosophy.

                  I’ve read the Koran before.

                  Sure you have.

                  More importantly I have first and second hand knowledge of lots of Muslims who live decent lives.

                  Which means nothing.

                  I know a man who was Hitler Youth and then volkssturm who lead any otherwise decent life. Unlike you I’m not stupid enough to think that speaks positively of the tenets of National Socialism.

                  1. Yes, certainly it’s impossible that a college student has actually read the Koran! You’re hysterically funny today Red.

                    1. Yes, certainly it’s impossible that a college student has actually read the Koran! You’re hysterically funny today Red.

                      I know a man who was Hitler Youth and then volkssturm who lead any otherwise decent life. Unlike you I’m not stupid enough to think that speaks positively of the tenets of National Socialism.

            3. Pointing out that a philosophy is evil is not collective guilt.

              Here we go again….I guess you didn’t take my advice.

              1. When you say it’s evil because some of its practicioners do something awful but when many do not, yeah, it seems a lot like collective guilt is going on there.

                1. Yeah, by this logic, Christianity is evil too.

                  1. Yeah, by this logic, Christianity is evil too.

                    If you are disingenuous enough to believe the strawman Bo-Bo has erected, sure.

                    I’m not judging the religion based on its practioners (which incidentally, Bo-Bo is doing), I’m judging it based on what it actually says.

                    1. And what Christianity has to say if often very evil. You’re not getting this, are you?

                    2. And what Christianity has to say if often very evil. You’re not getting this, are you?

                      Sure Bo-Bo change the subject…

                      Inform me of the part that tells Christ’s followers to subjugate the unbelievers and force them to pay tribute.

                    3. You really don’t want to start matching awful stuff from both Scriptures do you? Because I was kind of raised regularly reading the Bible, and there’s that whole Old Testament thing. The Amalekites would have love to get that treatment compared to what they got at God’s command.

                    4. God is an evil sociopath, no argument from me. Reading the OT is precisely what made me an atheist.

                      But it would be real interesting if you can actually give me a verse that tells Christians to murder or subjugate unbelievers.

                    5. Christians accept and try to follow the Old Testament too, Red. Go to church sometime!

                    6. Deuteronomy alone is littered with such commands. Here you go:

                      Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

                      Yep, murder a whole town if one guy is an unbeliever.

                    7. Remember, the Old Testament, which is surely revered and considered God’s Law which should be followed to most Christians, sits right in the middle of an Exodus that is full of this type of stuff.

                      Christians have plenty of ‘source material’ to be evil if they want to. That’s evident from the Scripture and from history. They’ve just interpreted the message in a way that gets rid of most of that, which is also what many if not most Muslims do.

                    8. Meant ‘Ten Commandments’ where I wrote ‘Old Testament’

                    9. I’m not judging the religion based on its practioners (which incidentally, Bo-Bo is doing), I’m judging it based on what it actually says.

                      There is some truly evil shit in the Old Testament.

                    10. The Old Testament was pre-Christian (obviously) and was essentially superseded by the tenets and teachings of the New Testament. No such occurrance for the Koran and Islam.

                    11. Yes, the Old Testament is obsolete to Christians, that’s why none of them are so big on the Ten Commandments.

                    12. Way to mischaracterize and dodge the point, I expect nothing less of you. I wasn’t replying to you anyway, I know better than to try to have an honest discussion with a pedantic little dishonest shit like you.

                    13. Um… how did he mischaracterize and dodge the point?

                    14. Yes, I directly addressed his point. He’s just mad, he wants a philosophy to hate. Conservatives had a sad with the fall of Communism, Islam is their next crush. People that don’t play along are spoiling all that for them.

                    15. Bo, you really didn’t learn anything from the bible if you believe that Jesus didn’t basically say “Live by the 10 commandments.” The entire new testament is pretty much a demonstration of such, but one quote in particular:

                      Jesus said: “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”

                    16. Er, I’m not sure where you think I’m disagreeing here.

                    17. The Koran holds that the Torah, Psalms, and teachings of Jesus are all holy texts. However, they were corrupted by men and superseded by the Koran.

                    18. Yeah, probably has something to do with why there are very few (if any) believers of the Old Testament.

                    19. That’s actually a good point. I think everyone agrees the Old Testament has some truly ‘messed up’ passages. Does anyone think Judaism is an evil philosophy? How silly, it’s adherents are a moral beacon to the world is closer to the truth. It’s not the source material or parts of it that determines the philosophy as believed and practiced.

                2. When you say it’s evil because some of its practicioners do something awful but when many do not, yeah, it seems a lot like collective guilt is going on there.

                  I’m saying the ideology is evil you lying (or illiterate) dipshit.

                  1. To say it’s evil because of some of what its Scripture says is like saying Catholicism is evil because of some of what its Scripture says. It’s stupid.

                    1. To say it’s evil because of some of what its Scripture says is like saying Catholicism is evil because of some of what its Scripture says. It’s stupid.

                      To say it’s evil because of what some of its books say is like saying Nazism is evil because of some of what its Scripture says. It’s stupid.

                      I’m going to enjoy reading the part in the New Testament that tells Christ’s followers to murder pagans and make other monotheists pay tribute or convert…

                    2. If most people that were Nazis had lived decent, relatively kind lives then we would have to reexamine what that philosophy was all about, at least to them, I’d say.

                      You can’t deny Christianity has enough awful stuff in it to justify Christians doing lots of awful stuff (it’s happened historically too). But given that nearly all Christians today don’t act on that it would be silly to say that Christianity is an evil philosophy. Likewise Islam.

                      I’m no fan of Islam btw. When I read the Koran I thought ‘here’s a religion that’s not for me.’ I think it has encouraged cultures that I think are repressive. And I think it does this to a greater extent than many other religions. But I don’t think the entire philosophical movement is evil. Many, if not most, people find what’s good in there and live decent lives. I’m all for dumping on the people, and yes there are a lot of them too, who take what’s awful in there and act on it. But lumping the good ones in with the bad is exactly what I’m against, and the presence of so many good ones suggests to me the philosophy itself is not fundamentally or inherently evil.

                    3. If most people that were Nazis had lived decent, relatively kind lives then we would have to reexamine what that philosophy was all about, at least to them, I’d say.

                      Most people that were nazis did leave relatively kind and good lives.

                    4. Nazis? Or Germans?

                    5. To say it’s evil because of some of what its Scripture says is like saying Catholicism is evil because of some of what its Scripture says. It’s stupid.

                      The Koran is the only “bible”ish book I’ve read that rabidly promotes violence, fwiw.

                    6. You have got to be kidding. The Torah doesn’t ‘rabidly promote violence?’

                  2. Redman couldn’t fill a thimble with his knowledge of Islamic theology.

                    The violence erupted under the thumb of 20th century authoritarian dictatorships. In resisting those kinds of authoritarian systems, I would bet that fundamentalist interpretations of any religion would become extreme and violent.

                    And take Sufism, for instance. I don’t see anything inherently violent in Sufism at all. In fact, Sufi shrines have borne some of the worst abuse from the terrorists.

                    You’re continuing attempt to justify a war on Islam in its entirety is just plain stupid.

                    You’re making generalizations about 1.5 billion people in more than a hundred different countries.

                    It’s stupid.

                    Redman is stupid.

                    1. You’re continuing attempt to justify a war on Islam in its entirety is just plain stupid.

                      Lying Ken? See, I can actually quote you on your defense of slavery and tribalism. Never have I stated that war should be declared on Islam.

                      You’re making generalizations about 1.5 billion people in more than a hundred different countries.

                      More lies.

                      I’m judging the theology on its own terms from what it actually says.

                    2. “See, I can actually quote you on your defense of slavery”

                      Redman is even dumber than Tulpa.

                      Here’s my “defense of slavery” he’s talking about:

                      “Incidentally, Britain’s adventure with imperialism in Africa began with good intentions. It was originally meant by abolitionists (we’d call them progressives), who wanted to stamp out slavery at its source in Africa. It ended in tears–as such thing inevitably do. In the end, Africa being in the state its in, certainly in Nigeria, is in no small part due to the efforts of people from the UK trying to solve their problems from the outside.”

                      —-Ken Shultz

                      https://reason.com/blog/2014/05…..nt_4504410

                      Yeah, because I don’t buy abolitionism as a legitimate excuse to invade and subjugate Africans, that means I’m pro-slavery? That’s Tulpa-worthy!

                      Also, this is from a thread where Redman, apparently, wants to use saving little girls as a pretext for a U.S. invasion of Nigeria to fight Boko Haram–which is what I was rejecting in my post. Someone above that comment wanted us to wipe out Islam like we did with the Nazis.

                      “I’m judging the theology on its own terms from what it actually says.”

                      Your knowledge of Islamic theology is practically nonexistent.

                      You might start here:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

                    3. Here’s my “defense of slavery” he’s talking about:

                      Oh yeah Kenny, but you wouldn’t want anyone scrolling down, now would you? That part where you’re exposed as both a LIAR and A DEFENDER OF SLAVERY AND TRIBALISM against people who dare make qualitative judgments.

                      Because you then posted shit like this:

                      You’re certainly not taking the free, qualitative judgements of the people you’re imposing your values on, are you?

                      Not all societies find violence completely horrifying.

                      As I posted elsewhere, there are things I prefer for qualitative reasons even if they mean more violence.

                      Like gun rights. Even if gun rights means more innocent dead children are killed in gang warfare, I prefer to have my gun rights anyway.

                      Yeah Kenny, tribal warfare is just like gun rights.

                      Qualitative preferences for freedom aren’t shocking to libertarians.

                      Except they are when then preferences are for war and slavery Kenny.

                      I also made it pretty fucking clear that I wasn’t defending colonialism, MORE THAN ONCE. You just chose to lie about it and fight with the voices in your head.

                    4. Your response doesn’t demonstrate anything except that you’re full of hot air and stupidity.

                    5. Your response doesn’t demonstrate anything except that you’re full of hot air and stupidity.

                      No, Kenny, it shows that I can actually back up what I fucking post, while you resort to lies and screeching about trolls when you get busted out posting dumb shit.

                    6. There isn’t anything there that in any way suggests I’m supporting slavery.

                      It’s just something you made up.

                      Seriously, I’ve been posting daily on this site for over ten years now–and you think you’ve finally unmasked me as a supporter of slavery, you copy and paste quotes of mine that show nothing of the sort, and then you claim victory?

                      That’s troll behavior. Are you Mary?

                      Speaking to the point of that post, though, it really is astounding that someone like you would be frightened of freedom–and expect people on a libertarian site to feel likewise. Not everyone is as easily manipulated by their own cowardice as you are.

                      I’m not afraid of Muslims (or handguns as I alluded to in my post you quoted) but even if I were, that wouldn’t make me want to sell my freedom short. And that’s because I’m not a coward like you are.

                      Seriously, selling our Constitutional rights down the river just because you’re scared is the definition of cowardice–and if you’re willing to give up on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, or Eighth Amendment just because you’re scared of Muslims (or guns), then you’re a coward.

                      Standing up for freedom despite whatever level of frightened you are is my definition of true patriotism, and selling our Constitutional rights short makes you a traitor to what being an American is all about.

                      How’s it feel?

                    7. P.S. Do you still really believe that the British bullshit claim of fighting slavery somehow justified the British installing an authoritarian colonial regime in Nigeria?

                      Because, for reals? The abolitionism was a bullshit excuse for what happened later according to–everybody.

                    8. P.S. Do you still really believe that the British bullshit claim of fighting slavery somehow justified the British installing an authoritarian colonial regime in Nigeria?

                      Because, for reals? The abolitionism was a bullshit excuse for what happened later according to–everybody.

                      So, more lying Kenny?

                      I wasn’t defending colonialism or imperialism, or the excuses used to promote it (which I stated explicitly), I was attacking your idiotic moral relativist stance. Judging slavery and tribalism to be wrong is not a defense of colonialism you fucking lying sack of shit. But you clearly think doing so is, because you’re a stupid asshole.

                      It’s pretty obvious in the course of that thread that you realized what an asinine position you took, which is precisely why you chose to make up shit I never said and argue with that, and when that failed scream troll.

                    9. As usual, you resort to making shit up.

                      I quoted you Kenny. I didn’t make up what you wrote, I posted it and responded to it. You choose to make up shit because your idiocy frequently places you in untenable positions.

                      You aren’t a defender of freedom Kenny. You’re a mental midget masquerading as an intellectual. FFS Kenny, you juxtaposed gun rights and self-ownership with tribalism. And the sad thing is, you are so stupid and so far up your own ass you can’t even see how profoundly fucking stupid your positions are. Which is why you resort to sputtering nonsense when somebody points out how gawd-damned dumb they are.

                    10. You know what Kenny, GILMORE pointed something out that makes me think I should make my condemnation of you more clear.

                      I don’t think you initially defended slavery and tribalism on purpose, you did it on accident and unintentionally because you are an idiot who grossly overestimates his intellectual depth. Your pride forced you to further your weak-sauce moral relativism argument, which was even more poorly thought-out (because you’re an idiot) and compounded by a strawman fallacy. Once you realized what you had done the only thing you had left was attack.

                    11. Your knowledge of Islamic theology is practically nonexistent.

                      You might start here:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

                      Damn Kenny, you do realize that you posted a link supporting my position, yes?

                      While abrogation is not entirely chronological, the logical basis for it usually does end up being chronological (namely the war verses came after the peaceful verses). The abrogation of the peaceful verses by the warlike is further supported by the Sunna.

                      It doesn’t say this in the link, but the Sunna has only been trumped by the Koran when the two are in direct conflict and no support can be found in the Koran for the declaration in the Sunna. The problem is Kenny, the kaffir living in the House of War as described by the Sunna is supported by a chronologically dominant revelation in the Koran.

                      Even if you manage to make an argument that the overwhelming majority of both historical and contemporary Koranic scholarship condemns violent jihad, there are other parts of the religion which are not up for debate that are equally detestable.

                      It’s also worth noting that the protections of Islam do not extend to idolaters or polytheists. So atheists and 2 billion Hindus and Buddhists are just fucked.

                    12. You know nothing about Islamic theology.

                      You don’t know what was abrogated or why, and that’s just a tiny drop in the bucket.

                      You don’t know what you’re talking about.

                      And you never will.

                    13. You know nothing about Islamic theology.

                      You don’t know what was abrogated or why, and that’s just a tiny drop in the bucket.

                      You don’t know what you’re talking about.

                      And you never will.

                      You’re out of your depth Kenny. You can’t actually refute what I’ve posted so you just impotently claim that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

                      Because facts don’t matter to you, especially if they are uncomfortable.

            4. Wait, I’m not a fan of collective guilt either, but this:

              I don’t think Islam=the Nazi Party. It’s a religion of around a billion people I think, and while it has some very bad actors I’m not going to say the entire philosophy is like that when at least a good chunk of the people following seem to be decent.

              is an incredibly weak argument. You’re saying that Nazism would’ve been fine if enough people were members of the party. Besides, only a very small minority of the Nazi party membership actively participated in the Holocaust; most had nothing to do with it, or at the most knew about it but didn’t actively try to stop it.

        2. Late comment but this is from the guy who obsessively posts about the evil SoConz are out to get us. Self awareness is a real issue with botard

      2. Islam is philosophically indistinguishable from Nazism or Communism and should be treated as such

        In fairness, when you understand that people like Seymour and Canfield are fascists, they are treating it as such. They know it is the same and they consider that a feature.

  15. Why are we even discussing and analyzing the murder victims’ speech?

    If some adulterer gets murdered by a jealous spouse, the overwhelming moral issue is the murder, not the murderer’s motive – the murderer should be put away.

    If some gangster does a drive-by shooting of a fellow gangster – that is, a cowardly murder and not self defense, then the overwhelming moral issue is punishing the murder, not chin-stroking on how the victim brought it on himself.

    Likewise, when Lincoln Rockwell* got shot, the issue was the murder, not what he said.

    If we can’t keep such issues separate, we’re set up for moral equivalence.

    *Lincoln Rockwell the Nazi, not Norman Rockwell the artist

    1. the issue was the murder, not what he said.

      I think that had more to do with the fact that the shooter was a disgruntled neo-nazi. If he’d been shot by a black guy then the issue most definitely would be about what he said.

      1. I’m just saying that having a *motive* – dislike of the victim’s speech or behavior – ought to be morally irrelevant to the nature of the murderer’s crime – murder is murder, and the aftermath of a murder is not the time (if there ever is a time) to denounce the victim’s views or lifestyle or express so-called understanding with the killer’s motives.

        1. You’re right about that. Pardon my didactism.

    2. My favorite Norman Rockwell painting*

      Cat Prevents House Fire
      http://bnnreports.com/wp-conte…..seFire.jpg (Sort of SFW)

      * OK I realize it wasn’t really Norm.

    3. Lew Rockwell’s been shot!?

  16. Once again, bigots have First Amendment rights, too.

    Yeah, I believe that terrorists and rapists have Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights, too, and I believe that bigots have First Amendment rights.

    Even if Charlie Hebdo were racist, homophobic, bigoted, arsonist, terrorist, communist, totalitarian AND stupid, that doesn’t change a thing about their free speech rights, and it shouldn’t change our defense of their free speech rights one iota.

    1. This goes beyond free speech – even if we assume purely for the sake of argument that his speech should be criminal, there are specific ways of enforcing criminal statutes, and a terrorist attack isn’t one of them.

    2. Yes, but people should use free speech to shame supremacists into non-existence.

      Violent supremacists should be killed out right if they refuse to put down the gun.

      1. I appreciate that.

        I hope you appreciate that the standard method of attack from the left these days has to do with calling out racism–as if that’s the end of the argument.

        The same thing happened, for instance, with Bundy over the summer. I don’t know the details of Bundy’s case, but I know that whether he was right or wrong about his BLM fees has nothing to do with whether he’s a racist.

        …and yet once the media pulled up examples of his racism, all the rest of his claims seem to have been thrown at the window. We’re starting to see the same thing with free speech, here. Should we stand up for the free speech rights of bigots in the face of terrorism or should the government step in stop this kind of thing?

        It’s really important that people realize that misogynists, racists, bigots, terrorists, rapists, and basketball team owners have rights, too. And they’re worth standing up for–even if the people currently gaining the benefit of our defense of their rights are unworthy.

        1. I dunno, I think owning a basketball team crosses a line too far.

        2. Yes, I am totally aware of the stupidity of the left on these issues.

    3. The best part is that the Hooded Utilitarian article claims Charlie Hebdo was homophobic because they published a picture of a man in a Charlie Hebdo shirt kissing Mohammed.

      Of course, that isn’t meant to mock gay people, it’s meant to mock Islam by doing something Islamists would consider sacrilegious.

      These people are such idiots they can’t even understand the point of the cartoons they’re trying to criticize.

      1. hah-they said that? I tried to read the article but the Hooded Utilitarian is coming up as a blank page for me.

        You’d have to be intentionally obtuse not to comprehend the purpose of that cover. Lying motherfuckers.

      2. I took the Charlie Hebdo kissing a Muslim image as ironic in a couple of ways.

        For one, toleration for Hebdo is the same toleration that lets Muslims flourish in France.

        Another might be that Muslim condemnation of Hebdo is part of what makes Hebdo’s papers sell. There is music I might never have heard if Tipper Gore hadn’t denounced it so publicly.

      3. It’s like I say below. It seems like a lot of these people think that words are inherently homophobic or racist or whatever. And making any joke involving a gay kiss is somehow homophobic.
        I think it sort of goes along with the idea that no one gets to have any independent views about racism if they aren’t part of an oppressed group (and even then, they’d better tow the lion).

  17. Reason should join PEGIDA in demanding an end to Islamism in Germany. Fuck Islmaists everywhere. They are worse than Jim Crow White Supremacists. Fuck them all.

    Liberty!

    1. There’s a flip side to the idea that just because something is bigoted doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be protected as free speech.

      And I guess that flip side is that just because something is protected as free speech doesn’t mean it isn’t bigoted.

      Yeah, fuck the terrorists and fuck the white supremacists, but God bless their free speech rights. Those are my free speech rights, too, and I’m neither a terrorist or a white supremacist.

      Although I do consider beagles to be racially superior to all other dogs. I guess you could call me a beagle supremacist–but, damn it, my right to free speech should still be protected anyway.

      1. Yeah, I agree. Reason should pay for you and me to represent them at a PEGIDA protest.

        We can yell at the Islamists and their apologists, and they can yell at us. Fuck Islamists!

  18. One of the writers at Volokh Conspiracy said that the murdered writers and cartoonists are heroes. I agree with him. These people had been threatened and attacked before but continued to speak their minds knowing the danger they were inviting. That’s a heroic act. I wonder if others are referring to them as heroes too, because I think they should be.

    1. If heroism is bravery in the face of violence, they damned sure were heroes. How many people have that kind of courage?

      1. Exactly. They’re straight up heroes in my book.

        1. Definitely. They carried on after being the victim of horrific violence in the face of threats of further violence.

          1. It’s too bad they couldn’t defend themselves.

            1. France has way-strict gun-control laws I do believe… “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”… HOW frickin’ OLD is that little ditty by now, anyway?!?!? It is so obviously true, but when will the dip-shits learn it?

    2. Absolutely. They knew they were potentially going to be attacked and they continued on anyway based on their secular, liberal principles.

      Anyone criticizing these people is scum.

    3. Yep, I called them that yesterday. Legit heroes. They knew there was a real chance of this happening, and had already seen their offices firebombed, but they remained defiant and exercised their liberty. Heroic.

  19. Is it a sad commentary on my own ethics to say I don’t know who I hate more, the murdering Islamists or their apologists?

    Fuck. them. all.

    1. I hate their apologists more. AT a base level, I can at least respect the kind of will and nerve it takes to kill and die for a cause, even the most vile and evil ones. Make no mistake, the people who did this are animals. But they still manage to be better than the cowards and weasels who apologize for them.

    2. I hate the murderers more. The apologists are just pathetic.

      1. We should hate the murderers more because they’re murderers, but the repellant, jock sniffing, apologists deserve to be ridiculed and shamed.

  20. Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.

    I can think of worse things to have carved on one’s tombstone.

    But I’m still holding out for “I was waiting for the funny part.”

    1. “Here lies W. C. Fields. I would rather be living in Philadelphia”

      1. Surely that’s a fate worse than death.

      2. Here lies David St. Hubbins… and why not?

  21. Canfield spends much of his word count sneering at Charlie Hebdo’s white editorial staff for having the temerity to satirize Muslims and their prophet, and cites this quote from a BBC profile on Charlie Hebdo’s murdered editor, Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier, as evidence that he’s a “racist asshole”

    So these people will of course defend Ayaan Hirsi Ali because she’s a black woman who was formerly a Muslim? RIGHT?

    1. And she is up for suppressing speech she doesn’t like, so they really should like her.

  22. I’ve heard that Charb had a bodyguard. Anyone know the details? Was he armed?

  23. I do not believe that racist, homophobic language is satire

    Here is a big part of the problem right here. There is no such thing as racist or homophobic language. Only racist or homophobic uses of language. Simply saying “nigger” or “faggot” isn’t a racist or homophobic act. If you can’t understand that, you aren’t going to get the point of satire at all.

    1. Good point, nigger.

  24. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

    That’s just begging for it.

    1. Is is just me, or does the whole “the cartoonists were antagonizing them, but murder is still wrong” argument sound an awful lot like “She was dressed like a slut, but rape is still wrong”? Just sayin’

  25. When those church nuts protested at military funerals, I’m pretty sure the Reason staff took the time to mention what jerks they were.

    Why is it so wrong to call the cartoonists jerks?

    1. Good grief. The church nuts were trying to disrupt a man’s funeral, these people were simply putting out a magazine.

      1. If the church people had gotten punched in the face for engaging in free expression, would that have made them “heroes”?

        1. No, they’d be jerks. Brave jerks maybe, but jerks. Disrupting a man’s funeral is a jerk thing to do. Putting out a magazine abstractly criticizing extremists does not make one a jerk.

          1. That’s, like, your opinion man.

          2. It depends on what’s in the magazine. Of course, it’s then just a matter of opinion as whether the contents reach “jerk” status or not.

    2. Are you trolling?

    3. In general, it isn’t. But it is in rather poor taste, and misses the point, to do so the day after they got murdered for daring to publicly express themselves (jerkily or not).

    4. Are you familiar with Charlie’s history and work?

      They mocked everything. Powerful establishment people, religions (all of them including Jews), and yes, Islam.

      That was their job. They were the modern version of Voltaire. Seems appropriate from a French publication.

      1. Thanks. The Prime Minister of France, Nicolas Sarkozy… uh, sorry, Manuel Valls, criticized Michel Houellebecq’s novel _Soumission_ on TV tonight, joining the ranks of media “intellectuals” and other right-thinkers who have called Houellebecq’s book Islamophobic without (needless to say) even having read it. The same “intellectuals” and other right-thinkers who have been lighting candles and joining processions to champion freedom of the press. When in fact Houllebecq in his novel is doing exactly what _Charlie_ did.

    5. I think the key difference is no one donned a rainbow mask and gunned down the westboro baptists. They took the church to court and rightly lost because there is no such thing as right to not be offended.

      Yes, the cartoonists were jerks, but being a Jerk does not carry the death penalty in civilized society.

      1. And being a jerk, or pretending to be a jerk, is the basis for much of the best comedy and satire.

    6. Because the cartoonists were not being jerks?

      Because the church nuts were attempting to intimidate and threaten innocent people going about their business, and the cartoonists were doing the exact opposite?

      Because we’re not stupid, and you are?

      All of the above?

  26. It has long struggled financially and recently launched an appeal for donations to keep going. In the wake of the attack, though, the French government and dozens of media organisations have promised to ensure Charlie Hebdo continues.

    So it might have folded anyway. But because of the crazies attacking their office, they’re going to receive donations and keep publishing. Irony?

    “Charlie has to come out. To not do so would be an abdication” of the media’s duty, the head of the AFP news agency, Emmanuel Hoog, said after a meeting late Wednesday with several radio, television and newspaper counterparts at the French culture ministry.

    I do fear that a state-sponsored Charlie will be crap.

    1. Yep. It’ll kill its soul as sure as the bullets killed its founders.

  27. And I’m disappointed that Donohue chose to be stupid about this whole thing. He is accustomed to making verbal and published protests against anti-Catholic bigotry, but one would hope that he would draw a much clearer line of demarcation between criticism and massacres.

    He’s feeding the narrative of moral equivalence between peaceful religious activities by Christians and violence by Islamist Muslims, giving aid and comfort to the secularists.

    1. The thing is, Donohoe and this League have basically borrowed the philosophy and approach of leftist ‘grievance industries.’ They’re essentially emulating the example of the ADL and the SPLC, borrowing their rhetoric and missions but with a conservative target being protected. Perhaps they thought it would be cute or ironic to flip the table in this way, but I think they ended up buying into it all.

      1. Before this incident, I would have disagreed, now I think there may be something to that.

  28. I don’t think that shooting up the Charlie Hebdo office was ethically Right with a capital R, ok? But I do think it’s understandable.

    Um, what? I mean, I understand that people do it. I guess I understand, on a superficial level, why they do it. But she isn’t using “understandable” simply to mean that she understands the reality of Islamic extremism. She is saying the reaction of Islamic extremism is wrong but that she can sympathize. Like it’s wrong to pull the trigger, but OK to want to do it. That is disgusting.

    1. You can’t overrstate what a stupid evil bitch that woman is. She is saying it is understandable that someone would murder 12 people in cold blood over a fucking cartoon.

      You know what is understandable? Someone who finds a guy molesting his ten year old daughter and murders him in a fit of rage or when a holocaust victim hunts down and kills the SS Officer who murdered his family. There are some really extreme cases where any reasonable person will say “sure it is murder but I understand why they did it”. This vile bitch is saying that someone finding a bunch of cartoons offensive to their religion is one of those cases on par with the two I mention.

      Words fail.

      1. Excellent point.

  29. How would these people react if some Christian extremists had killed 12 people at an abortion clinic? Would they say murder was wrong, but understandable, and the abortion doctors should not have provoked Christians?

    1. Bill Donohue would probably agree with the killers, implicitly if not explicitly.

    2. People like that have no principles, they have a Team.

      1. Oh, so collective guilt is ok now, cool, cool.

        1. Haha, you really are pathetic, aren’t you? And dim judging from this comment.

          1. +1 Redman = Team Red dim bulb.

            1. So back to lying Ken?

              1. Now you’ve got two people to be angry about. You’re day must be made!

                1. Now you’ve got two people to be angry about. You’re day must be made!

                  I’m not angry. I just think you are a fool and I treat as such.

                  Ken’s upset because I haven’t forgotten about how he spent an entire evening defending slavery and tribalism because to criticize them was making “qualitative judgements” and really just a form of, and defense of, imperialism. It was truly breathtaking, he actually compared negative rights like self-ownership and gun rights to slavery.

                  Once he realized what a colossally stupid position he placed himself in he went berserk and started claiming I was a troll and Mary.

                  When he did basically the same shit in a threat about sexism (claiming that America in the ’50s really wasn’t much different from Islam WRT views of gender roles) I called him out and then he came to the moronic conclusion that my name has something to do with politics.

  30. If only muslims didn’t sit on our oil, they’d be too busy killing each other over what Muhammad did or did not say for the west to be bothered by them so much. Can’t wait until the East starts to get in on some of that “insult an idiot muslim” action. Let’s see how red China responds to a brutal massacre by a satiricist making fun of the prophet. A billion angry chinamen can’t be wrong.

    1. A billion angry chinamen can’t be wrong.

      Not the preferred nomenclature

  31. I’m disappointed that Donohue chose to be stupid about this whole thing.

    Donohue’s a fucking scumbag. You can be “disappointed” if you want.
    Just don’t bother to act surprised.

    1. There’s a good reason why there’s a billion catholics and a church going broke.

    2. He’s no scumbag, he fucked up in this case. Now he needs to rehabilitate himself. But his organization isn’t wicked in and of itself – quite the contrary.

      Yes, I’m surprised, no, I am no more acting that you are.

      1. His problem is that he sees virtually any criticism of Catholicism and the Catholic Church as some kind of hate speech. That’s far too broad of a brush, one that, like I said, I think he picked up from nutty leftists organizations.

        1. The thing is, *someone* needs to do the work he’s doing. Anyone who specializes in defending the Church would be attacked simply for that. Which is why I think it’s important to distinguish between pointing out specific dumb stuff he says versus making him out to be some kind of overall villain.

          Ron Paul made some bad choices – including making a Donohue-style statement about the killings. But he doesn’t attract the same kind of rancorous response here.

          Donahue used to be at the ACLU – later writing two books criticizing the group. Maybe his ACLU experience rubbed off on his approach to activism.

          1. Ron Paul criticizes France for allegedly provoking the bombings – France was wearing a provocative short skirt or something.

            http://www.mediaite.com/online…..lie-hebdo/

            1. Ron’s off message again, yay…

            2. WTF, Ron Paul? Foreign policy had nothing (I mean nothing) to do with the shooting.

          2. It’s certainly not objectionable for someone to take on defending the Church and Catholicism from what they feel are unfair, inaccurate attacks. My problem with Donohue is how he frames it in the ‘this is bigotry, hate speech’ framework.

            1. Some of it is based on ignorance or sensationalism – which he tries to correct:

              http://www.catholicleague.org/…..STERIA.pdf

              1. Sure, and I get that. Like I said, I just think he too often uses that whole Leftist ‘hate speech’ script.

                1. Wait – you ignored my silly teasing and responded to the substance of my argument?

                  Who are you, and where have you put Bo?

      2. Why aren’t “moderate” Catholics doing something about this guy?

        *barely straight face*

        1. You mean, like saying he fucked up?

          1. I’m kidding. Almost entirely.

            1. OK, sometimes my sarcasm detector is on the fritz.

  32. “No, the offices of Charlie Hebdo should not be raided by gun-wielding murderers.”

    Who are you (rhetorically) talking to? The Jihadists themselves? They’re not actually that interested in your fucking opinion.

    Are you pre-emptively suggesting that someone is (will be) accusing YOU of recommending mass murder? Neat trick that. Speak in exasperated tones to an invisible character who makes ridiculous claims. Classy.

    “No, journalists are not legitimate targets for killing.”

    Again – who the fuck suggested they were? And the way you phrase this “Legitimate targets” thing suggests that, if not *journalists*, apparently some people qualify. Why use the world ‘legitimate’ at all?

    “But no, we also shouldn’t line up with the inevitable statist backlash against Muslims”

    Muslims? How about the people who fucking did this? The fact that they ARE muslims is not merely coincidental. You seem to be making their religion some kind of protective armor against criticism. These journalists were killed for criticizing the branch of Islam that countenances exactly the things you state “No” about above. So the ‘invisible person’ you were rhetorically speaking to? THAT WAS ISLAM. Because the only motherfuckers saying “Yes” to those questions are Islamic fanatics.

    Everyone in the same camp as Jacobin et al, are perfectly fine with “Hate Speech” and “Racism”, and are experts at “Victim Blaming”, so long as their targets are the politically correct ones.

  33. Nobody should have been killed over those cartoons.

    Fuck those cartoons.

    That’s totally a fine thing to say. It even crossed my mind.

    But of course he had to attach it to a mealy-mouthed justification and non-sensical accusations of racism.

    1. Why fuck the cartoons? What is wrong with them? Why can’t you insult someone’s religion? Would you say “fuck the cartoons” if they made fun of how someone dressed or their politics? If not, then what is so special about religion that is so deserving of protection?

      I say this as someone who considers himself to be religious. I see no reason to say that satire of any religion, even my own, is somehow different than any other satire. i judge those or any other piece of art not by whether I agree with the message but by whether it is any good as art. Just because I don’t agree with the message doesn’t mean I should say “fuck the cartoons”.

      1. And were they really insulting Islam on the whole, or insulting an aspect of it that some practicioners hold (that depicting the Prophet is bad and something that justifies evil acts)?

        1. I don’t know. But even if they were, so what? Maybe Islam as a whole deserves to be insulted. Even if I or you don’t think it does, that doesn’t mean we are right about that.

          The murder changes everything in this conversation. We all say “fuck that” to things we don’t like. The problem is that these guys were murdered for doing this. In light of that event, saying “fuck the cartoons” does nothing but imply that the victims deserved what they got.

          Even if you think the cartoons are offensive, the offense given over the cartoons is so small in comparison to t he crime of murder it no longer matters and thus is irrelevent. Saying “fuck the cartoons” in this context is no different than commenting on how tacky you thought the victims were dressed. Imagine someone saying “yes murder is bad and he didn’t deserve to be killed, but that victim was wearing a bolo tie, fuck that tie”. It would be utter nonsense and a completely insensitive thing to say. Saying “fuck the cartoons” is doing the same thing, mentioning a completely irrelevant point.

          1. I can’t get over the fact that people even care that they are insulted. My 7 year old son already understands that words are harmless as long as you aren’t an emotional basket case.

  34. http://www.straitstimes.com/ne…..a-20150107

    Two brothers wanted for the attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo have been cornered by security officers in a house in northern France, French media and a police source said late on Thursday.

    Cherif Kouachi, 32, and his 34-year-old brother Said, had fled to the house after stealing food and petrol at a roadside petrol station near Villers-Cotterets in the Aisne region, media reports and a source close to the manhunt said.

    They got the fuckers holed up. Just set it on fire.

    1. But did they manage to do that without shutting an entire city down (except for the donut shops) while busting into peoples homes without reason?

    2. It’s not Philadelphia

    3. Dropped his ID at the scene? Conspiracy nuts gonna go wild.

      1. Well, he did apparently drop a tennis shoe out of their getaway car. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that they changed in the car and his wallet may have fallen out.

        1. Of course anything is possible. WTH do I know?

      2. Who brings their ID to an assassination?

    4. Janet Reno was not available for consultation.

    5. And, we know these are the guys that did it? Or, has it just been reported they are the guys? Because we all know how accurate first reports are.

      1. They were given a fair trial and convicted, early this afternoon…

  35. They received death threats and continued to put out cartoons to stand for freedom of expression. What have you done for humanity?

    1. Nothing like that. Those guys are heroes. You have to stand up to this shit. If they get away with intimidating everyone into not publishing a cartoon, they will move onto something else until finally we will not have any freedoms left.

      1. That was for another comment. Don’t know how it got put here. But, agreed John. Problem with the US is you have this giant feast of freedom which is slowly being nibbled away at. It happens over generations and clear cut examples like this one don’t come that often. Freedom is lost in tiny pieces. The top dogs know you won’t start a revolution this way. It’s death of a thousand cuts.

        1. And once you start killing people, it is so easy to terrorize the rest of society into silence. What is next? Killing women who don’t cover up in public? Give me a crew of a few hundred suicidal lunatics and it wouldn’t be hard to enforce that rule on society. Just start murdering women who don’t wear one and make it clear any woman in public not wearing such is risking death. I wouldn’t have to kill that many women to get the rest of them to fall in line. And that is where this is going.

          1. Kill 5 women across Canada for not wearing a head scarf and I can assure you 99% of all women in Canada would start wearing head scarves.

  36. They got the fuckers holed up. Just set it on fire.

    Oh, come on. It’s not like they shot a couple of cops.

    1. Actually, they did on their way out of the offices. Excuted one on the pavement after he’d been wounded too.

      1. The bodyguard was also a police officer. And they shot a janitor on the first floor as they entered the building. I’m thinking the LEO/bodyguard was unarmed.

      2. If they killed cops, well, then they should set the whole block on fire just to be sure, and then shoot any dogs in the vicinity, since they may have been accomplices.

    2. Or as scruffy points out, they are not MOVE members.

    3. Except for the two they killed..

  37. When I saw this weird porn proud Kitty Stryker feminazi whatever person quoted in this article I thought “what kind of weird porn star uses the words “consensual space”” which, infers, there is such a thing as a “nonconsensual space” and… well lets not go down the doublespeak bullshit road again. The point is, I did a google image search on her. I regret this decision.

  38. Holy crap, even Garrison Keilor our resident liberal icon in Minnesoda has come out unequivocally condemning the attack.

    http://www.minnpost.com/politi…..s-magazine

    Peaceful coexistence within diverse communities requires a climate of tolerance and an open exchange of views that includes criticism, humor, and hyperbole. The right to satirize, to question, to expose, to mock, even when offensive to some, is a bulwark of a free society. Today’s bloody retribution for the drawing and publishing of cartoons represents a terrifying challenge to these values of tolerance.

    We call upon all governments, religious leaders, and civil society institutions to join us in condemnation of this vicious attack. We ask them to insist that however offensive speech may be to some, it is never a justification for violence.

  39. I really, really hate the proggy meme that one must never “punch down” with satire or humor. It amounts to saying that criticism and humor must only operate in the direction they prefer. Screw that.

    And Kitty Stryker is an idiot for thinking criticism of Islam is about race. It’s about a religion, fool.

    1. That’s what Robert Darden quipped in HuffPo. “Satire-writers always point out the foibles and fables of those higher up the food chain. Your targets must be the proud and the powerful. If you make fun of people less fortunate than you, even if it is for legitimate satiric effect, then it is not satire. It is bullying. Being a bully is never funny.”

      I’d rather go by the immortal wisdom of “fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke”. Though I’d definitely take care to keep those jokes away from sensitive eyes/ears.

    2. Its not really a prog thing, its a pretty reasonable rule of comedy. You don’t punch down because its not funny. This was a complete misuse though of the term. Islamist are willing to use violence to enforce their ideas which put them on above the power matrix that some non-violent french humorist. and that’s clearly who this was directed at. An actual moderate Muslim who like free speech might be a little offended, but then would just not read it and continue with their day (like any sane mature sane person). That these apologists treat all Muslims as children that need to be coddled should be grossly more offensive than some cartoon.

      1. It’s not really “a reasonable rule of comedy.” While it is true that people will not laugh at things that they take too seriously, it’s absurd to say that “targets must be the proud and the powerful.” So it was illegitimate to satirize Nazis in the early ’20s, when they were a tiny and powerless group? I can’t satirize feminists or gays, whose beliefs are now federal law, because they claim to not be “powerful”?

        Fuck Robert Darden. He’s just tilting the playing field in his direction.

      2. “You don’t punch down because its not funny.”

        yes it is.

    3. If you’re not a “proggy,” what are you?
      When I was in high school, you were either a “frat” or a “cat,” or else a “preppy” or a “greaser.” I’m a “proggy,” I think. What are you?

  40. I think when it’s all factored out, the basic problem is that people in general don’t understand how natural rights work, nor how to deal with being offended. They then go on to promote laws that attempt to prevent things they see as an affront to their “rights,” only to find out that the only thing they’ve done is outlawed a bunch of bullshit that nobody cares about while letting dicks with the ambition and desire to commit atrocities against ACTUAL rights flourish.

  41. Herein my edited version of something attributed to John Fry:

    My dear,

    So you’re offended. So fucking what?

    So you’re offended by my sexuality? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended by my use of vulgar language? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended by my atheism? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended by my religious beliefs? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended by my ethnicity? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended by how much money I make? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended by how much I drink? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended by how much I eat? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended by how much I abuse drugs? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended by how little I eat? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended because I am a teetotaler? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended because I fuck like a rabbit? So fucking what?

    So you’re offended because I’m a virgin? So fucking what?

    Someone being offended by whatever they claim offends them doesn’t mean jackshit. The fact that you’re offended is of no importance to me. I don’t derive my being from what you think of me. I derive it from what I think of me. And I like me. That’s all that matters.

    And that’s all that should matter to you too. What you think of you. Otherwise, if you are offended, go fuck yourself real rough and real hard.

    Falsely yours,
    Stephen John Fry & Me

    1. Someone being offended by whatever they claim offends them doesn’t mean jackshit.

      Quoted, for fucking truth.

      1. Amen. Boo hoo, you haz a sad over some words. Get over it.

  42. Well, fuck every person cited here. You really found some deplorable reactions, Anthony.

  43. Has Kitty grasped that she’s essentially stated that her own murder at the hands of these people would be “understandable” because her chosen profession insults and provokes them?

    I really can’t fathom how these people function on a day to day basis.

    1. Someone seems to have tried to point that out to her in the comments.

  44. But I do think it’s understandable.

    finally. a testable hypothesis from a prog.

  45. As a side note, kudos on the correct usage of “Social Justice Warrior”. A leftist who quickly and unthinkingly becomes illiberal in the pursuit of their goals has been my go to definition.

  46. more from the Barrel of Brilliant that is Kitty Stryker =

    LOOK = MURDER IS UNFORTUNATE AND STUFF, BUT DON’T DARE MAKE RAPE COMPARISONS

    “The implication I’ve now seen more than once that a bunch of privileged white men who courted controversy gleefully being shot for that (and putting other, NONconsenting people in fatal danger) is *the same as a woman walking in public getting raped* disgusts and horrifies me. I think it is possible to say that being abusive to someone and utilizing your power and privilege to do so is an action that is likely to have reactionary consequences. I think to then imply that a woman walking in public deserves to get raped, or that the comparison is at all logical one, is completely absurd and suggests an alarming misunderstanding of how rape culture works.

    To say that the contributors to Charlie Hebdo knew full well that they were putting their dick in a wasp’s nest is not the same as a woman walking down the street apparently knowing she’s going to get raped, unless you believe walking down the street is an action that incites violence, which I do not. I don’t think that the contributors at Charlie Hebdo “had it coming”, but I do feel that they were very aware that their actions caused violence in the past and might again and, as people with privilege, they had agency in their decision….

    I feel sorry especially for the Muslim police officer who died

    1. That was from this

      I am not surprised by how ungodly awful this person is, mainly because there is *absolutely nothing the slightest bit new or different* in her rhetorical barf-mix of modern internet-feminist cliches.

      Its that this sort of posture is so *banal* and common that is disgusting. Her as an individual person w/ these opinions? Of zero concern. The fact that the mainstream media (MSNBC at least) would have someone else parrot slightly more mealy-mouthed, qualified versions of the same is what fucking blows my top. That anyone thinks this sort of harping is *sane*

    2. who died

      The passive voice was used. Deep thoughts were not had.

    3. She the let the mask slip quite a bit. Killing white men is understandable, but not capital R right.

    4. disgusts and horrifies me.

      I have not yet begun to disgust and horrify. — 5’3″ white girl

      1. +1 Churchill Cigar

    5. as people with privilege, they had agency in their decision

      Aaaaaaand there it is. People without privilege don’t have agency, which is why they need to be looked after by those who do. Progressivism in a nutshell.

      1. Weeeeeellll I’d say it’s not so much that we need to be looked after, but more like we need the fact that we don’t have agency to be recognized. Instead, connies like you insist on telling us we need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps just like you did. Except that you were born into your privilege – the irony being that if your forbears who won that privilege for you, who did the pulling for you, were around today they’d be beaten down instead of given a chance. *Especially* if they dared to try to articulte their condition in a public forum.

    6. She feels more sorry for the armed police officer than she does for the secretaries who worked there. She is ‘especially’ sorry for the ‘Muslim’ policeman. Why? Does his religion make him more sympathetic? Because he is not one of the power structure (despite being armed and a policeman)?

      1. “She is ‘especially’ sorry for the ‘Muslim’ policeman. Why? “

        Because he’s a member of a ‘victim class’ who was working the service of the state. Therefore, doubleplusgood

        1. So when a non-white, non-privleged person is abusive toward Islam, is it understandable when they are violently punished?

          http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sa…..ing-islam/

          1. It is wrong of you to impose your Western social-mores on other cultures; in fact, we should try and learn from their approaches to try and better understand their perspective on how words can be used in constructive or unconstructive ways.

            /boilerplate-progderp

            1. It is wrong of you to impose your Western social-mores on other cultures; in fact, we should try and learn from their approaches to try and better understand their perspective on how words can be used in constructive or unconstructive ways.

              Our own Ken Schultz has made this very same argument, nearly word-for-word, to defend a number of utterly repugnant ideas.

              1. Really?

                which repugnant ideas in particular?

                1. Specifically slavery and tribal warfare.

                  Here.

                  He didn’t go into the “learning” part, but he definitely posited that judging slavers and tribalists was moral colonialism.

                  1. Without going and reading the actual thread, i am reminded of this one particular line =

                    “?nothing is more unfair than to judge of the sentiments of one age by the improved moral perceptions of another?”

                    Which i think originated in the 19th century in a discussion about the Pederasty of Socrates.

                    i.e. homosexuality in those days was considered an appalling ‘crime against nature’ – but scholars suggested that it would be a mistake to judge his behavior according to modern lights.

                    I can see someone making a similar point re: some deplorable immorality of the past that was widely accepted as de rigeur at the time

                    1. I can see someone making a similar point re: some deplorable immorality of the past that was widely accepted as de rigeur at the time

                      Except that’s NOT what Kenny was doing, at all. If he had been his attack on abolitionism in colonialism would be logically unjustifiable.

                      Reread the exchange between he and I. He thinks making moral judgments is not only a defense of imperialism, but imperialism in itself.

      2. By definition, the Muslim officer was being persecuted by French society. The secretaries are lower on the victim ranking.

    7. But a woman walking down the street does not have agency?

      What the fuuuuuuuck?

  47. If the critics also attack the satires of Christianity and Judaism, then they can at least claim to be acting on the basis of a principle of sensitivity and decency. Otherwise, they’re merely politically correct cowards — who by definition don’t really believe in free speech anyway.

    1. A satirist in Germany said yesterday that Christians are much more likely to send hate mail in response to satirical depictions of Christ than Muslims of Muhammed. For whatever that’s worth…

      1. And hate mail is fine (until it threatens violence). Calling for laws banning satire is not. Actually engaging in violence as a response to satire is not.

      2. “Christians are much more likely to send hate mail in response to satirical depictions of Christ than Muslims of Muhammed”

        Shocker! People who live in Western Civilization fight Speech with Speech.

        Muslims? Firebombs slightly more popular than Reason.

        DRINK! (*including for those for whom it is Haram)

  48. Holy Jesus shitting in his diaper. I did a GIS for Kitty Stryker. Are you fucking kidding me? This semi-sentient blob of lipids makes porn? For fuck’s sake.

    1. It is ironic porn Warty. You only think she is fat and ugly because you are a slave to the patriarchy.

      1. Judging from what you see on mainstream porn tube sites, a fair number of people are into fat and ugly (I don’t think BBW is necessarily a contradiction, but a lot of them just aren’t). But the SJW nonsense makes it that much more repulsive.

    2. have you tried the goggles?

    3. I saw that – Bleeeeeech arghheeecgh. (spitting) sorry, keep throwing up.

  49. I don’t understand what the critics of Charlie are saying exactly. That satirists, those who express “controversial” positions, etc., don’t deserve freedom of speech protections? Then WTF are these protections supposed to protect exactly?

  50. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for 74 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail
    ————— http://www.paygazette.com

  51. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  52. so the same minds who think the 2A is to protect the goverment’s right to bear arms think the 1A is to protect popular speech.

  53. “It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death,” said Donohue of Stephane Charbonnier, Charlie Hebdo’s publisher.” In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, ‘Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.’ Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.

    Did Mr. Charbonnier ACTUALLY answer that question that way or is Mr. Donohue paraphrasing from a bad translation?

  54. What about Ron Paul’s reaction?

    As he has said in the past about the attacks of September 11, 2001, Ron Paul again argued Wednesday that “bad” foreign policy, this time on the part of France, “invites retaliation,” now in the form of today’s shooting at Charlie Hebdo’s Paris offices.

    Paul made his comments in an interview with NewsmaxTV’s Steve Malzberg, saying he does not “blame” the country of France for the attack, but he does blame on “bad policy that we don’t fully understand.” He added, “It doesn’t justify, but it explains it.”

    “This is pretty obscene, when it comes to violence, and libertarians are pretty annoyed by anybody who initiates violence,” Paul said of the attacks, explaining that France has “been a target for many, many years, because they’ve been involved in foreign affairs” in Libya and Algeria.

    Citing U.S. wars in the Middle East, drone strikes and sending weapons into Syria, Paul said, “It’s that overall policy which invites retaliation, and they see us as intruders.” He added, “We’ve been conditioned to believe that the only reason 9/11 happened is that we are free and prosperous. I don’t believe that for a minute.”

    1. Sigh… I see this as a stretch, to be honest.

    2. Fuck Ron Paul. Seriously fuck him. What an ignorant single minded shit head he is. The people who did this are French Muslims. This has nothing to do with foreign policy. The US invading Iraq, which France never supported anyway, has nothing to do with these assholes deciding that it is their duty to kill anyone who insults Muhamad. Fuck that miserable bastard and thank God he didn’t become President.

      1. I think I read somewhere the attackers were speaking perfect Parisian French. They are locals.

      2. France has been allowing the recruiting of young men to fight in jihadist groups against the Assad regime in Syria as part of its participation in US foreign policy. These young men were among them, just like the Tsarnaev brothers in Chechnya. The US has been recruiting radical Islamists since Afghanistan in the Carter years. Since the Sarkozy presidency, France has been playing along. But to you, they’re just assholes. French, and Muslims. The only thing that surprises me is that you didn’t call them “Leftists” too.

  55. It somewhat shocks me that a porn star would defend censorship. It does not shock me whatsoever that a porn star would say something stupid.

    I guess that makes me judgmental.

  56. Years ago I became interested in libertarianism but couldn’t really get on the bandwagon because I felt that libertarians put too much emphasis on legalizing drugs. I had no interest in using the drugs in question, and it just didn’t seem like much of a political platform.

    Since then I’ve come to understand that the issue represented something much more important – that the essence of living in a free society is supporting the rights of others to do things that I might disagree with. I think that’s exactly what the Charlie Hebdo story is about. They should have absolute freedom to do what they were doing, whether I agree with them or not.

    Criticize Charlie Hebdo if you like, but doing so in the context of these murders is the same as saying you sympathize with the killers.

    1. Criticize Charlie Hebdo if you like, but doing so in the context of these murders is the same as saying you sympathize with the killers.

      Absolutely. What you think of the cartoons has absolutely no relevance to the crime. None. And anyone who mentions their thoughts on the cartoons in the context of these murders is either an idiot who doesn’t know what he is saying or thinks the victims got what they deserved.

    2. They are sympathizing with the killers. That is the point. They can pretend they aren’t, but it is no different than saying “Well, it is really a shame that teenager was raped, but I mean, come on, look at how she was dressed. Not an excuse, but it is kind of understandable.”

  57. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  58. “The Daily Beast’s David Freelander said “Free speech is about the world of ideas. It doesn’t mean that you’re engaging in that when you’re being deliberately provocative.”

    That about sums up the whole attitude doesn’t it. Free Speech is great unless you use it to threaten the status quo, then its a problem. I hope these Fascists get what’s coming to them, but I know that they won’t.

  59. One of the details not being reported much is that the terrorists separated the men from the women and killed only the men, sparing the women.

    Likely that’s why someone with a feminist background finds it “understandable.” If they had killed all the women instead that would be blaming the victim.

    Feminism has really jumped the shark in the last couple of years. They’ve always been mostly a pack of liars, but they seem to really be overextending themselves lately and don’t even seem to be aware of that.

  60. SJWs can’t get past this idea of the oppressed and the oppressors, and they get to decide who is who. A cartoonist being murdered is automatically an oppressor because he is white and mocking Muslims, and the Muslim killer is the oppressed because racism–their minds must explode when they have to consider a Muslim black woman criticizing other Muslims. (Mock Christianity all you want, though, as that will always be part of the “oppressor” group)

    It must be difficult for the SJWs to go through life, constantly facing the logical fallacies of their poorly thought out beliefs.

    1. Or having to consider that the the people whose actions she just found “understandable” would oppress her and other women in a heartbeat.

      Has she missed the news where groups like Boko Harem and ISIS kidnapped and sold women into slavery?

    2. their minds must explode when they have to consider a Muslim black woman criticizing other Muslims.

      They’ve been pretty fucking snotty towards Ayan Hirsi Ali.

      -jcr

  61. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the sentiment “I support your right to free speech, but I do find what you said offensive”–it’s the same sentiment I’d share if we were actually talking about something racist (like, a cartoon that suggests blacks are ape-like morons). I wouldn’t blame the cartoonist of course if some offended person killed him–free speech is still free speech.

    I’m just wondering why exactly the same sort of people who find no problem lashing at Christianity (Donohoe as an exception) are so much more troubled by a satirical assault on Islam. Is Islam an “oppressed” religion while Christianity is an “oppressor” religion? Is that how the SJWs have to view this?

  62. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the sentiment “I support your right to free speech, but I do find what you said offensive”–it’s the same sentiment I’d share if we were actually talking about something racist (like, a cartoon that suggests blacks are ape-like morons). I wouldn’t blame the cartoonist of course if some offended person killed him–free speech is still free speech.

    I’m just wondering why exactly the same sort of people who find no problem lashing at Christianity (Donohoe as an exception) are so much more troubled by a satirical assault on Islam. Is Islam an “oppressed” religion while Christianity is an “oppressor” religion? Is that how the SJWs have to view this?

    1. Yes, they do. Christianity is associated with Western civilization, colonialism, and white people: all bad things in their view. Islam is oppressed because it’s in the Third World and practiced by brown people, which are good things. SJWs will drop all their blather about the rights of women and gays for the sake of attacking Western civilization, colonialism, and white people.

      1. It is such a ridiculous point of view. Yes, Christians have been guilty of all of that. But Islam has plenty of association with colonialism, conquest, and imposing their civilization on others. As have many other non-European groups throughout history in ways that were far more brutal and inhuman than anything Europeans have done.

        1. I particularly enjoy it that the left ignores the fact that slavery in America wasn’t the result of white people raiding African villages for slaves, but merely buying slaves from African slave traders, many of whom were black and/or Muslim. Oops! Better bury that inconvenient fact PDQ.

          1. Bury it in a white supremacy forum where it belongs. Or is that where you got it?

      2. that’s basically it.

        The SJW interest in ‘islam’ has zero connection to what ‘islam’ actually is… so much as they see it as in conflict with the West – which, being run by the White Male Capitalists, is just all wrong and shit – and is therefore a ‘victim class’ imbued with essential value and goodness, never mind the Bona-Fide Rape Culture, Koranic-sanctioned wife-beating, Genital Mutilation, forced marriage, female servitude, ‘an unhealthy employment environment for Female Schoolteachers’ etc..

  63. Attacking Islam, by definition, is not racist. If anything, it’s religious bigotry.

  64. I didn’t think that the Western Left could get any more repulsive than they already were, but apparently I was wrong.

    1. What do you find so repulsive about the Western Left? If Left is West, then Right must be East. New York? Philly? Boston? But then, what are North and South?

  65. I don’t think that shooting up the Charlie Hebdo office was ethically Right with a capital R, ok? But I do think it’s understandable.

    Un-fucking-believable. So, basically if you can understand it then there would be a circumstance where speech would make you murder the speakers?

  66. The cowardice and lack of moral fortitude exhibited by the referenced writers should be surprising, but isn’t. When it comes to freedom of speech, I believe Voltaire set the standard when he said, “I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

  67. I think some people find condemning the terrorists too obvious and banal, so they find some other angle, but it gets to the point where we forget to condemn the terrorists enough and it sounds like things are being equivocated.

  68. “So, I’m generally pretty anti-censorship. I mean fuck, I just worked on a porn where we gently poked fun at the new British porn content laws by enacting all of them in a playful, consensual space. I am a big fan of art, and using humour to hopefully make people think and change their minds.

    That said, I do not believe that racist, homophobic language is satire. I think it’s abusive, and I think it punches down, harshly and often.”

    That’s it we’re done here.

    This thread is CLOSED.

  69. Don’t you wish someone would say that to them? I do.

  70. If being a racist is the end of the discussion for the Virtuous then what if the other party does not accept their view of Virtue? I have always believed that if war is not the answer, then the question just isn’t important enough. At what point do the Virtue police put on the camou, pick up their ak-47s and M-16s and start defending either something or someone (including themselves)? I say defending because I can certainly see them ordering (like Obama and his drones) superior legions or division to do their dirty work. When do they do the dirty work and for what??

  71. I thought we were against victim blaming, ala the latest feminist rape culture push.

    Oh, well. I guess victim blaming has it’s places.

  72. I’m not exactly sure what the point of this article is, but if the paper was sarcastic and snotty, and most editorial cartoons are, I don’t see much of a problem with killing them. Stuff like that poisons the conversation.

    1. I hope this is sarcasm.

    2. Cool story bro

    3. Really? Killing for sarcasm?

      Christ, I hope you are attempting sarcasm.

    4. This reply is incredibly offensive and infuriating to me, and I believe it poisons the conversation. By your logic…

  73. til I looked at the bank draft 4 $7692 , I didn’t believe …that…my brothers friend woz like they say realy bringing in money in their spare time from there new laptop. . there neighbor has been doing this for under thirteen months and a short time ago paid for the loans on their appartment and purchased a new Honda . visit their website…

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  74. Islam is a deadly, ugly infection on the body of human civilization. It’s time to apply some antibiotics to it.

    1. Finally a poster who doesn’t mince words!

  75. Cartoons – “provocative”.

    Mowing down people with AK47s – “understandable”.

    There are so many scumbags in the world.

    1. Shooting the shooters – absolutely intolerable!!! (Really?????) I ascribe to the Jacksonian Tradition – leave us alone – we leave you alone. If you attack us we’ll crush you.

      http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

    2. They say “death to America” even in elementary school. We don’t make much of a fuss about that, they burn the US flag, we don’t make much fuss about that. It’s fine they have sovereign nations and we believe in freedom of expression…unless the islamist don’t like it, in which case we should keep our mouths shut.
      This is the left’s answer.
      It’s surely the safest course for an individual in the short term, but just as surely disastrous for the West to do this collectively in the long run.

  76. “White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire, and needs to be called out”

    The classic marker of Privilege is who can criticize who. Those who can’t be criticized are privileged. Those who can’t, aren’t privileged.

  77. The leftist ideology, in my mind, is basically a religion known for bad ideas and a distinct aversion to free speech and individual liberty. So too is Islam at its core, so it is no wonder that these “Social Justice Warriors” as characterized by the author seem to be in sync. I am somewhat amazed that the leftists even took the time to condemn the murders. Ben Affleck call your office.

    1. I consider that side to be feelers more than thinkers: words, principles and logic are just tools to communicate emotion for some people.
      I’m not saying they can’t think, I am saying that whatever capacity they have for logic is often sublimated and used to defend/advance the present feeling.

      Of course this leads to contradictions form day to day,encourages bias and dogma; and is rarely forward looking –but based, often, on the emotional fallout of a previous era.

      1. I totally agree with your comment on feeling vs. thinking which is why trying to debate a leftist is an exercise in futility. They will never acknowledge their failed policies and if confronted by facts, they will change the subject or accuse you of being a bad person (racist, bigot, misogynist, etc). Also, they focus on process but ignore results. These may seem like stereotypes and generalities, but in my experience, they are standard behaviors/tactics.

      2. “Subordinate,” I meant

  78. To riff on Francis Scott Key, you’re not going to get a land of the free if you don’t have a home of the brave.

  79. Every French and every American newspaper and magazine should republish the “offensive” Charlie Hebdo cartoons as a demonstration that they revere liberty and freedom of speech, and that they won’t be cowed by those who hate liberty and freedom of speech. If a thousand newspapers and magazines printed an offensive cartoon, who would the terrorists target?

    Odds of this actually happening? Please…

  80. Wow – what a load of crap.

    The article takes to task anyone who takes Charlie Hebdo to task for their racist, misogynistic, crude, vulgar cartoons. Does this mean that if someone is murdered, they are now immune to criticism? Does this mean that Reason is in favor of censoring opinions they don’t like? Certainly, if we follow the author’s reasoning, Reason must be guilty.

    The author believes observing that Hebdo’s behavior was dangerous and (to some) objectionable with blaming Hebdo for the massacre. It attacks Donahue that way, even though Donahue most certainly asserts (conveniently not quoted) that the terrorists should be hunted down for their vile actions.

    So let’s be clear: Hebdo was a vile, juvenile, crude and offensive magazine. It’s authors, though, were brave to continue in the face of threats. The attacks were the result of Islamist philosophy, not Hebdo. If one thought that Donahue was blaming Hebdo for the attacks, then one would have to ask why Christians (or other targets) did carry them out. The answer is simple: in today’s world, only Islamists behave this way.

    1. Does this mean that if someone is murdered, they are now immune to criticism?

      You’ve missed the point. The people who criticize the murdered can also be criticized. You do understand how this free speech thing works, right? Your point would only make sense if the Reason Staff stormed the offices of and shot the douchebags who wrote the stuff about “understanding” their being murdered.

      Criticism and speech don’t ‘end’ when we all finally agree. It’s continuous. It’s a mobius strip, if you will.

      So let’s be clear: These people are free to say they think that they brought their own deaths on and deserved it. And we’re free to call them douchebags for it, and they’re free to demand more censorship… and so on. That’s what a free society does.

  81. The Paris shooting reminded me of a movie scene: In the film “Public Enemies” bank robber gang led by Dillinger (Johnny Depp) robs bank in Osh Kosh, Wis. One of the gang gets twitchy, sees a motorcycle cop get off his bike across the street(unaware of the robbery) and guns cop down from inside the bank with his tommygun. As they exit the bank the robbers walk into gunfire from the citizens, including one across the street with a deer rifle who kills one of the gang with one shot.

    If ANY such abomination such as occured in France takes place here – let the news show the bullet riddled bodies of the perpetrators tied to a lamppost with the sign .”Send more” written in arabic on the bodies.

    1. Their bodies should also be covered in used tampons. I think the Islamists are kind of tetchy about women who are “unclean”.

  82. If “upsetting” someone is a mitigating factor in the culpability of the murderers – well I want those who say that to wear that sign on their body – so no one leaps to their aid when they are attacked and beaten in public – perhaps they could wear a red “J” – so regular citizens will know those so marked “expect” their punishment.

    And so there will be no tears for Jon Stewart or Colbert? REALLY????? So you think violence will end when the people who piss you off get a “lesson”????? Tell that to the Klan you jackasses. Klan – Communists – Islamists – their IDEA is irrelevant…..they want to TELL YOU HOW TO SH*t, Breathe, THINK – basically everything! – will you LET THEM? If you are that big of a coward – go out front and draw fire, you useless turd.

  83. I make up to USD90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around USD40h to USD86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link Try it, you won t regret it! …
    ………………………. http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  84. Muhammad was a fag.

  85. Agree,

    Earlier today I wrote:

    I don’t think free speech is only for the diplomatic, or sweetest, or most eloquent, or most formal, or most mature, or even (despite my love of logic), the most logical,…but for everyone.

    I also wrote that “they (other journalist) ought to know that a war of ideas (or any war) probably can’t be won by a side that chooses not to fight. Charlie Hebdo was fighting that war of ideas, but most are not. I also think the average journalist ought to realize that although the easiest and safest measure for individuals in the short term is to give in to the threats–it is the most disastrous in the long term when done collectively.

  86. It’s called free speech for a reason. Offending someone shouldn’t be considered a crime, however rude and unsociable it may be. Maybe those who are easily offended never grew up to become rational adults, because rational adults don’t kill people over mere words, no matter how insulting they may be. It’s just a hop, skip, and a jump away from that idiotic concept of “honor”, and duelling. If you can’t stand your honor being insulted, then how much honor do you really have?

    1. There are people who like to feel offended – it justifies their own innate hostility toward others and helps them excuse their own actions.

  87. “The Daily Beast’s David Freelander said “Free speech is about the world of ideas. It doesn’t mean that you’re engaging in that when you’re being deliberately provocative.”

    The phrase “deliberately provocative” in the above statement is an admission that the people in questions are unreasonable. Mr. Freelander must think that Muslims en masse are unreasonable, otherwise they wouldn’t react at all to the publishing of these cartoons. It’s almost as if he expects this kind of behavior…

  88. You can pry my gun-free zone placard from my cold dead hands.

    1. They will. That’s kind of the design of a gun-free zone.

      1. Forgot the /sarc.

        1. After I posted that, I realized you were being funny. Well played sir, well played.

  89. The planets high and mighty can send out assassins when they are angered. Only wiretaps in their harems could have avoided killings of the cartoonists.

  90. Censorship is required by law for speech that is illegal. Free speech must not be harmful. “Hate Speech” like ‘Charlie Hebdo’ thrived on violated “natural laws” whether these insults violated French or American laws or did not. These were speech that was intentionally offensive but legal according to all human law(s). The broadcasting of this type speech must clearly be silenced in the future by a new law instead of more killing. Until this new law is created, killing the speakers silences them. The killers feel this silencing is almost justifiable homicide. I disagree, but many do not.

    1. There is no such thing as the right not to ever be offended. The whole idea of “hate speech” is bullshit – just a way to silence speech someone doesn’t like.

      1. That’s pretty much the size of it.

  91. Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” was deliberately provocative and he learned the hard way about the West’s tepid defense of free speech in the world of ideas.

    Hmmm… Rushdie did commit the fatal moral error of saying that he had “written a serious book” when contrasting his own situation with someone else’s who had been targeted by Islamic clerics.

  92. I have a Koran. I have read the Koran. Muslims have a “religious” mandate to screw over infidels. . . Like me. EOM.

    1. We should all have t-shirts printed up that, in big block letters, spell INFIDEL. Mine’s already made and says “INFIDEL” on the back and “HEATHEN” on the front.

  93. I remember when L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling was in the middle of his gaffe based upon racial comments unknowingly recorded in a private conversation and I was watching “The Daily Show.” Jon Stewart was gloating over the fact that Sterling was going to be forced to sell his team by the NBA. His quote – “You may have freedom of speech, but you are not free from the consequences of your speech!” And the audience just applauded! They loved it! In free societies (whether the USA or France), you counter speech with speech…you do not “punish” speech. Can we finally get over this dangerous and asinine concept of punishing and harming people (whether economically or with death) for speaking what is on their minds???

    1. Basketball blows. It’s not even a real sport. It’s just a game; like Mousetrap or Sorry.

  94. It’s Friday. Where’s my F’in’ Funny?

  95. I was taught, as a child: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Of course, that refers to physical hurt. But emotionally strong people will not be hurt by words. But, the question is, for these critics of free speech, where do you draw the line? Remember, the ultimate goal of the Islamic religion is to convert or kill all non-Muslims. Believe it or not. Islam is not a religion of peace or tolerance and under Sharia law women are quite literally property. Further, the ban on images of their prophet Mohammed is based on not having “images” to pray to, as is done in the Catholic Church and as was prohibited by the God of the Old Testament which, by the way, is the same God for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Ironic, isn’t it?

  96. “White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire…

    I think it punches down, harshly and often…

    Looks like the SJW assholes have gotten their talking points. It’s amazing how often these echo chamber living fucktards use the exact same phrases as each other.

  97. Steyn has the right idea. Western media needs to man up collectively and in great numbers satirizing Islam. So that instead of one tiny newspaper they have to kill in Steyn’s words “all of us”.

  98. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  99. Start working at home with Google! It%u2019s by-far the best job I%u2019ve had. Last Thursday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———— w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  100. Start working at home with Google! It%u2019s by-far the best job I%u2019ve had. Last Thursday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———— w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  101. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.