Yesterday the Belgian police did a raid on a house of 3 "terrorists-to-be". They attacked the police with AK-47's (showing they were indeed planning something), 2 of the guys got killed and another one was arrested. During the house search they found plans the threesome made (the terrorist kind) like killing as much police-officers as they were able. And apparently there were alot more people involved, in multiple European (and other?) countries. Therefor the Belgian military has taken over various police duties like guarding goverment-buildings. Shit's getting real :/
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious Charlie Hebdo attack and European Far Right
- Thread starter DiscoDucky
- Start date
Wow Trax. I blame you for assuming causation, and you go ahead and do exactly that to justify your deeply demented opinions and pat yourself on the back.
Tell me more about how Hindus and Sikhs suffer from an intrinsic association with a global band if terrorism.
Tell me more about how Muslims in France, Spain, and many other European countries are colonial immigrants from former North African Colonies of these very countries. How there was utter disenfranchisement of these people until less than 50 years ago. You conveniently seem to assume all of them are Arab job hunters.
"If they don't like it they can leave."
Wow. That's the most ironically ignorant thing I've read.
So you're saying implicit discrimination is okay, and if there's any responsibility it's for these shat-on Muslims to pack their suitcases and go back, to where? Their war-stricken homeland? The oppressive country with no economic opportunity they left in the first place? And do what there? If they had proper lives and jobs they wouldn't have left on the first place. Great job providing extremist groups with a perfect fodder of jilted jobless people to recruit.
And what about the former colonial immigrants? What about the second and third generation Muslims?
People who "don't like it" are the ones who become extremists in the first place. Blowing up people isn't a casual part time activity.
"If they don't like it, they can leave"
Indeed. Thank you for justifying every bit of propaganda ISIS and All Qaeda thrive on.
"They"
This sociological othering you seem to do with such indifference is what causes the animosity in the first place.
You are a narrow minded, ill informed, oversimplifying, and frankly a dangerous bigot. You ignore the entire socio-cultural history of Islam, sharpshoot your way into justifying asinine ultra right wing discrimination, and you are completely okay (maybe even overly proud and feel completely justified) with them being lumped together with extremists or being called "shitty people".
Consider this my final post, you have shown yourself incapable of following even the basic strands of rational discourse.
Fuck you.
Tell me more about how Hindus and Sikhs suffer from an intrinsic association with a global band if terrorism.
Tell me more about how Muslims in France, Spain, and many other European countries are colonial immigrants from former North African Colonies of these very countries. How there was utter disenfranchisement of these people until less than 50 years ago. You conveniently seem to assume all of them are Arab job hunters.
"If they don't like it they can leave."
Wow. That's the most ironically ignorant thing I've read.
So you're saying implicit discrimination is okay, and if there's any responsibility it's for these shat-on Muslims to pack their suitcases and go back, to where? Their war-stricken homeland? The oppressive country with no economic opportunity they left in the first place? And do what there? If they had proper lives and jobs they wouldn't have left on the first place. Great job providing extremist groups with a perfect fodder of jilted jobless people to recruit.
And what about the former colonial immigrants? What about the second and third generation Muslims?
People who "don't like it" are the ones who become extremists in the first place. Blowing up people isn't a casual part time activity.
"If they don't like it, they can leave"
Indeed. Thank you for justifying every bit of propaganda ISIS and All Qaeda thrive on.
"They"
This sociological othering you seem to do with such indifference is what causes the animosity in the first place.
You are a narrow minded, ill informed, oversimplifying, and frankly a dangerous bigot. You ignore the entire socio-cultural history of Islam, sharpshoot your way into justifying asinine ultra right wing discrimination, and you are completely okay (maybe even overly proud and feel completely justified) with them being lumped together with extremists or being called "shitty people".
Consider this my final post, you have shown yourself incapable of following even the basic strands of rational discourse.
Fuck you.
Well Islam as a religion (especially one that shaped itself with war and conquest) has some intrinsic xenophobic/discriminatory values entrenched in it. But the same really goes for all Abrahamic religions well. For example turn to Luke in the Bible and you'll have this neatly worded commandment asking you to mercifully slaughter those who don't accept the grace and benevolence of the (christian) god. Or that lovely one about stoning the jews and killing the false worshippers (egyptians).
The Torah also has a similarly great line that goes: "Eisav soneh et Yakov" (Esau hates Jacob), meaning that Non-Jewish will always hate Jews.
The question here is can we draw a rational boundary between the religion and it's followers. And between the followers. I think it's a no-brainer we can. Unless of course we have dangerous idiots who'll lump them all together and use it as a standard to judge and discriminate, driving even moderate followers to alienation and eventually hate and distrust. The Gulf/Iraq/Syria/Pakistan.
Example: Al Qaeeda recruitment went up threefolds not after 9/11, but after the US invation of Iraq. After cities were devastated and farmlands burnt and regular muslims being violently repelled by first world citizenry.
Example: Most of the top level ISIS recruits are not indoctrinated villagers but people who grew up in first world countries seeing their religion being subversively eroded, and this othering I talked about in my earlier reply. Either religious discourse is completely discouraged, or you have a charlie hebdo. The only other source of information for these said people are "wise men in the internet" (extremist propaganda), which seems to be the only sourse sympathetic to their religion. The sad thing is some people *coughcough* cannot even imagine the idea of living under a perpetual sociological burden of stigma, and yet are bold enough to talk about how "shitty" they are.
The examples are plenty.
edit: I can't believed I wasted my 2k arguing bigotry. I wanted an anime-boobies firebot thread
The Torah also has a similarly great line that goes: "Eisav soneh et Yakov" (Esau hates Jacob), meaning that Non-Jewish will always hate Jews.
The question here is can we draw a rational boundary between the religion and it's followers. And between the followers. I think it's a no-brainer we can. Unless of course we have dangerous idiots who'll lump them all together and use it as a standard to judge and discriminate, driving even moderate followers to alienation and eventually hate and distrust. The Gulf/Iraq/Syria/Pakistan.
Example: Al Qaeeda recruitment went up threefolds not after 9/11, but after the US invation of Iraq. After cities were devastated and farmlands burnt and regular muslims being violently repelled by first world citizenry.
Example: Most of the top level ISIS recruits are not indoctrinated villagers but people who grew up in first world countries seeing their religion being subversively eroded, and this othering I talked about in my earlier reply. Either religious discourse is completely discouraged, or you have a charlie hebdo. The only other source of information for these said people are "wise men in the internet" (extremist propaganda), which seems to be the only sourse sympathetic to their religion. The sad thing is some people *coughcough* cannot even imagine the idea of living under a perpetual sociological burden of stigma, and yet are bold enough to talk about how "shitty" they are.
The examples are plenty.
edit: I can't believed I wasted my 2k arguing bigotry. I wanted an anime-boobies firebot thread
Last edited:
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
So as in France.
They want to demonize any country that isn't allied with them.
China will probably be the next after all those Islamic affairs.
No, actually much of UK's and USA's media is already demonizing China.
Nah that isn't really true, 'the Western media' does not frequently report on the activities of the Chinese government/multinational businesses in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. The most common thing I hear about China is their pressing need to meet their energy needs or they are manipulating their currency, so in some sense China is portrayed very neutrally, not that I agree either way. Also China is definitely allied with the U.S in a lot of ways, I would say the thing that probably comes between the governments the 'most' is how to handle regional politics (i.e relations with Japan and North Korea).
Asek
Banned deucer.
I wouldn't worry about China being demonised; much too big of an economic powerhouse and nearly all western countries have strong trading ties / agreements with China. I'd agree with Myzo in that the portray end of China is very neutral in the media (at least in Australia), most of the reports on China involve how much of our ores they're buying lol (for the record I very rarely pay Attemtion to the news outside of the finance section). If China was to be portrayed as evil in any way it would be through their political relations and practises, but everyone seems to want to do that to Russia instead of China. There is very little to gain by calling out China in its current state ^_^
As for the thread discussion; honestly who cares what someone believes in if they don't try push their beliefs onto you; there's a large belief in Australia that Islam is evil but really that's just bullshit spread through the same media that made boat immigrants seem like the biggest issue for a whole nation and got somebody who made a fool of himself on the international stage elected as the leader of the country. for example the Sydney siege was a lone gunman with no attachments to Islamic state, but the media made it appear like he was directly linked with IS, promoting further hatred towards that group.
Can't imagine too many long term implications from this being too major; immigration will be a lot tighter for many western countries as long as IS remains in the headlines, but other than that I'd imagine that discrimination against Islamic people will rise as has been the trend lately
Shame this threads been derailed pretty hard by a petty argument spanning the last 2 pages
Last edited:
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
They find all these comics ok? Freedom of speech/ expression?? this is totally immoral. And people are protesting to support them?
I am not saying that they deserved to be killed, but what they did wasn't right in the first place.
"Yellow Peril", recently on Fluide Glacial.
(Man, these Chinese people are so yellow o__0)
I am not saying that they deserved to be killed, but what they did wasn't right in the first place.
"Yellow Peril", recently on Fluide Glacial.
(Man, these Chinese people are so yellow o__0)
Last edited:
I don't feel comfortable offering deeper insight into the points made in this thread about the implications of this attack because I do not know enough about the situation as a whole, but I can say if your contribution is "well those cartoonists and others committed a wrong too" please do not post. There is absolutely no place in this discussion for the examination of the offensive nature of the cartoons themselves; whether the cartoons in question or others are racist has no relevance as there is never a justification for an act of terror. It alarms me that after a vicious and needless attack on a press outlet prevailing sentiments in this thread have included 1) The cartoonists were stupid for satirizing a major religious figure, as they should have anticipated and attempted to evade a violent terrorist attack that would result; 2) These attacks were the fault of Islam in general; 3) The entire outcry over this attack is overblown and simply the product of the American media making a scene. All of these ideas are false.djanxo unchained said:
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I'm not even allowed to choose a side?
If there's an incident on the news about wife chopped off cheating husband's penis, which happened in the UK a while ago, whats your comment?
I bet someone's going to say stuff like Epic Punishment Win.
Last edited:
That. We can all just stop blaming. Because if we do, there are is, 1) the fact that publicly disrespecting someone's religion, practice or idol is completely absurd when you have a following built up beforehand and, 2) there is literally no reason as to which you simply just walk up to some place and start killing people before even talking, as in, negotiating with the other party and coming to a conclusion. When you do, there is very easy decision making as you get solid reason to why you should. A similar situation can be: killing a criminal after they have committed a crime that is logically and judicially punishable without wiping out the person's existence as a whole. Think of that person as someone's brother, sister, mother, father, relative... what is the impact? But sadly to say, there are extremists to the point of what we are currently hearing and observing these past years.
I mean, there is guilt and fault on both sides. But we don't have to blame; doing so won't change or have an impact, or even create a newer, safer and more logical opinion either. That, and you can't just stand the whole French population or the whole religion/community of Islam responsible for the happenings. I mean, if you oppose the extremists, then think of having caught in the similar situation in which the followers of Islam are/were. Your loved one, your idol is depicted as someone who he/she is not and is also shown in such disgusting matter. What do you do? Surely you do not kill, but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is your reaction to this situation inside. You will surely develop hatred or disgust towards the creators?
Now put yourself in the other place: you make a cartoon portraying a highly respected figure in another religion's community doing something that is extremely discouraged and disgusted in that community, and is also absurd to the people as such that it is "impossible" that their idol will or would've ever done that. Yeah you did that, but for fun. You clearly didn't do something worthy of getting killed without chances?
Food for thought, people.
The crux of my argument is the idea that there are no "sides" in the discussion you attempted to have. Your point "the cartoons were racist and not okay" is absolutely meaningless in the context of this thread. The potentially-racist nature of the cartoons has no relevance; they could have depicted anything and not warranted an armed terror attack. The fact that you fail to understand this alarms me. There are places for the discussion of tolerated racism in media, especially in satirical media; i feel as if we'd have different views, but there is a debate to be had. However, this thread is strictly about the repercussions of the terrorist attack that occurred as a result of what was intended as satire. It sort of sickens me to see people imply, somehow, the cartoonists "should have known better" or "shouldn't have written the cartoons in the first place". There is no justification for terrorism. Regarding your second point (which was a non-sequetor but okay) I would comment: she should be arrested. That's violent assault. The fact that other people would make retarded comments is not okay either; do you think it justifies your utterly nonsensical, victim-blaming views you posted without context in this thread?Djanxo unchained said:
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
You are missing my point.
My point is that French published media is always constantly making offensive remarks of any religion or race, in the name of "freedom of expression". Which is totally on topic.
Of course the cartoonists "shouldn't have written the cartoons in the first place." I'm NOT saying that they deserve to be killed, but they certainly deserve SOME sort of punishment in return. Letting things run wild under the false name of "freedom of speech" is NOT ok!!
Victim blaming? It's not like being raped, that whether the victim had done something wrong is arguable. (often, being raped does not involve provocative clothing) In this case, the so called "victim" (which I personally would not victimize them) had done something that is decidedly wrong! That this party is also an offender.
It is actually fair and neutral to say that both sides are wrong. I wouldn't say that I'm on the Muslim's side at all.
And if you think that being fair is actually victim blaming, YOU are the biased one.
And frankly, what you said sickens me as well.
You are basically thinking that as long as someone is a victim, he/ she is always right and that people cannot point out his/ her faults. Despite the fact that "victims" can be jerks too.
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Are you the one who started this thread? Or are you a moderator? Seriously? I've been on Smogon for how long now? I don't need to be told what's on topic and what's off topic. Check your priorities.
Victim of rape never has done something wrong? You biased mind! Although the percentage is very low, it happens, dude!
Roy Baumeister, a social and personality psychologist, argued that blaming the victim isnot necessarily always fallacious.
Well, why would it be fallacious when the "victim" had done something decidedly wrong?
Tacit endorsement <-- I don't see how or why-- please elaborate.
^Not the point. Let's not equate try to put terrorism and free speech on some relative scale. Charlie Hebdo's "blame" is also irrelevant. Calm them self-righteous tits.
djanxo whatever your name is this week. I'll leave this for you.
(explanation: Freedom of Speech doesn't exist for pretty neutral views everyone agrees to. Those would be allowed to air anyways. Freedom of speech is guaranteed to protect opinions that would otherwise be assaulted and stifled. Oftentimes radical and distasteful. Judge it all you want, but you have no right to demand regulation. If you say something is "allowed" under free speech and something isn't then you don't believe in free speech at all.)
djanxo whatever your name is this week. I'll leave this for you.
(explanation: Freedom of Speech doesn't exist for pretty neutral views everyone agrees to. Those would be allowed to air anyways. Freedom of speech is guaranteed to protect opinions that would otherwise be assaulted and stifled. Oftentimes radical and distasteful. Judge it all you want, but you have no right to demand regulation. If you say something is "allowed" under free speech and something isn't then you don't believe in free speech at all.)
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I see. Though I would personally call that Anarchy of Speech.^Not the point. Let's not equate try to put terrorism and free speech on some relative scale. Charlie Hebdo's "blame" is also irrelevant.
djanxo whatever your name is this week. I'll leave this for you.
(explanation: Freedom of Speech doesn't exist for pretty neutral views everyone agrees to. Those would be allowed to air anyways. Freedom of speech is guaranteed to protect opinions that would otherwise be assaulted and stifled. Oftentimes radical and distasteful. Judge it all you want, but you have no right to demand regulation. If you say something is "allowed" under free speech and something isn't then you don't believe in free speech at all.)
Unless the definition of freedom differs from language to language.
Hey, but can't someone sue another person for racism if a racist remark is said? I think you can do that in the UK, but I don't know about other places.
Again you're equating very different circumstances.
In any secular court of law "Truth" is a valid defense against libel and slander. That is, if the statements made about the plaintiff are true, the fact that they were injurious will not matter, since society has an interest in protecting and encouraging truthful speech. The majority of courts hold that if the defendant proves that his statements were true, it does not matter if his purpose was to hurt the plaintiff, or even that he did not personally believe his statements to be true at the time he made them.
Racism is generally accepted as a fictional construct with no truthful basis. And that has been repeatedly proven in the court of law and is accepted by any rational individual.
Critique of society and religion is not. Again it's problematic because even many countries in paper espouse free speech really don't abide by it and stifle controversial discourse all the time. But assuming we live in any self-respecting democracy, if you can prove a legitimate basis for your criticism then it isn't slander/libel.
This in general legal terms is known as an individual's "Privilege to Defame."
Otherwise you can practically muzzle everyone because they "hurt your religious/personal sentiments" or whatnot.
yah well the response to the attack is racist af, so if you would please stop strawmaning ? Everyone's all like 'nothing can justify an act of terror' but maybe there are justified responses to acts of terror? Stop ascribing exceptionalism to events and maybe I'll start taking your claims about true 'ideas' seriously. If you choose not to see the whole picture, that does not make any idea false and you have offered to no argument other than: "since it cannot be justified it cannot be analyzed".
If your response to this is just 'oh what an exceptional tragedy that cannot be analyzed' you have chosen to learn nothing, and why would you choose this other than what you learn makes you uncomfortable?
To reiterate:
1. to claim this event is exceptional is racist and imperialist af.
2. This in NO WAY implies the attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified, only that it is myopic in the extreme to not consider how this event can be understood/ought to be interpreted.
3. Saying Charlie Hebdo was racist is not to say that the attack was justified.
It's like you don't even realize that everyone's privacy and security are at stake in responding to this, if you choose to close your ears/eyes to analysis and accept the narrative construction offered to you by corporate journalism, the one that reifies the notion of free expression without ever asking for whom expression is free, or for whom freedom of expression is protected, or for whom freedom of expression can be meaningfully attributed to, or what it would look like to actually protect everyone's freedom of expression, you are a sheep. Your perspective is practically religious and it certainly isn't going to make me any safer to expand the police state, which is what is happening as we speak.
Soulfly, it is pretty obvious that those supporting Charlie Hebdo in the name of freedom of expression are worshipping a bunch of Liberal buzzwords (freedom, freedom of the press) that they've been conditioned to think have some instantiation in the real world. And if so, why aren't they championing privacy rather than freedom of expression, which has implicitly been equated with national security.
Implicitly, for Chomsky, as you read him, violence (in its broadest sense) is not a form of political expression.
This makes the centrality of some fashionable ideological perspective (libertarianism/liberalism) visible. For on all other Western understandings (all Aristotelian traditions) of what political action consists in, violence is encompassed in what is involved, even necessary, to political action.
Since instead of an argument, you offer an emotional refusal, we could ask "From where does this sentimentality towards the phrases 'freedom' and 'freedom of expression' arise?" Since it refuses to understand, despite understandings having violent consequences and hence political/social consequences, this feeling may said to be profoundly inwardly directed. Perhaps, rather than cure you by reason, as your tendency seems to be to refuse it, I can offer you a prescription for feelings: check them against how other people might feel after your conformist attitudes leads to further erosions of privacy/other consequences.
Freedom of expression can in one way be thought of as something that naturally arises when no one is censoring anyone or coercing censorship through some means. In another way, it can thought of something that individuals can't have unless other conditions are met (such as economic conditions). Thus, some propose that condition is national security, or tacitly and implicitly, the condition turns out to be national security. Yet, some of their opponents say that poverty and racism are bigger threats to freedom of expression. And so they affirm that "none of us can speak freely unless all of us can be heard". The former attitude, the natural attitude, locates a freedom of expression in opposition to violence: violence is thought of as that which coerces and censors, rather than that which is the outcome of coercion. Thus, they are able to exceptionalize violence; to refuse to see it as the outcome in a larger sequence: the domination of political outcomes and knowledge production by capital in the contemporary historical moment. And so they inevitably deny that the violence of capitalism/racism that could have taken place prior and come around in a new form again, they refuse to see the relationships between events. The (Hegelian) boomerang model of violence which Ralph Ellison describes in the prologue of Invisible Man (http://genius.com/Ralph-ellison-invisible-man-prologue-annotated) is disavowed. And so they are able to maintain that violence can be used to create the environment which is attributed freedom of expression, as they do not allow that violence must beget more violence and that the only way to stop violence is to stop being violent.
If your response to this is just 'oh what an exceptional tragedy that cannot be analyzed' you have chosen to learn nothing, and why would you choose this other than what you learn makes you uncomfortable?
To reiterate:
1. to claim this event is exceptional is racist and imperialist af.
2. This in NO WAY implies the attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified, only that it is myopic in the extreme to not consider how this event can be understood/ought to be interpreted.
3. Saying Charlie Hebdo was racist is not to say that the attack was justified.
It's like you don't even realize that everyone's privacy and security are at stake in responding to this, if you choose to close your ears/eyes to analysis and accept the narrative construction offered to you by corporate journalism, the one that reifies the notion of free expression without ever asking for whom expression is free, or for whom freedom of expression is protected, or for whom freedom of expression can be meaningfully attributed to, or what it would look like to actually protect everyone's freedom of expression, you are a sheep. Your perspective is practically religious and it certainly isn't going to make me any safer to expand the police state, which is what is happening as we speak.
Soulfly, it is pretty obvious that those supporting Charlie Hebdo in the name of freedom of expression are worshipping a bunch of Liberal buzzwords (freedom, freedom of the press) that they've been conditioned to think have some instantiation in the real world. And if so, why aren't they championing privacy rather than freedom of expression, which has implicitly been equated with national security.
Implicitly, for Chomsky, as you read him, violence (in its broadest sense) is not a form of political expression.
This makes the centrality of some fashionable ideological perspective (libertarianism/liberalism) visible. For on all other Western understandings (all Aristotelian traditions) of what political action consists in, violence is encompassed in what is involved, even necessary, to political action.
Since instead of an argument, you offer an emotional refusal, we could ask "From where does this sentimentality towards the phrases 'freedom' and 'freedom of expression' arise?" Since it refuses to understand, despite understandings having violent consequences and hence political/social consequences, this feeling may said to be profoundly inwardly directed. Perhaps, rather than cure you by reason, as your tendency seems to be to refuse it, I can offer you a prescription for feelings: check them against how other people might feel after your conformist attitudes leads to further erosions of privacy/other consequences.
Freedom of expression can in one way be thought of as something that naturally arises when no one is censoring anyone or coercing censorship through some means. In another way, it can thought of something that individuals can't have unless other conditions are met (such as economic conditions). Thus, some propose that condition is national security, or tacitly and implicitly, the condition turns out to be national security. Yet, some of their opponents say that poverty and racism are bigger threats to freedom of expression. And so they affirm that "none of us can speak freely unless all of us can be heard". The former attitude, the natural attitude, locates a freedom of expression in opposition to violence: violence is thought of as that which coerces and censors, rather than that which is the outcome of coercion. Thus, they are able to exceptionalize violence; to refuse to see it as the outcome in a larger sequence: the domination of political outcomes and knowledge production by capital in the contemporary historical moment. And so they inevitably deny that the violence of capitalism/racism that could have taken place prior and come around in a new form again, they refuse to see the relationships between events. The (Hegelian) boomerang model of violence which Ralph Ellison describes in the prologue of Invisible Man (http://genius.com/Ralph-ellison-invisible-man-prologue-annotated) is disavowed. And so they are able to maintain that violence can be used to create the environment which is attributed freedom of expression, as they do not allow that violence must beget more violence and that the only way to stop violence is to stop being violent.
Last edited:
As always, I think if you find something offensive (or just downright stupid), your best choice is to ignore it.
https://vid.me/YgVw
Still baffled as to how anyone can shit on the cartoonists in this case.
This is really beginning to sound like #notallmuslims.
Charlie Hebdo has been sued many times in France and most of the time has won because what they do has been considered blasphemy, which is expressly allowed in French law, not hate speech.
I am not an expert on French law and so I don't know how that dividing line was drawn. In the US at least though we have a legal test for hate speech based on imminent danger. These very pro free speech laws have allowed hateful speech by Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, etc to be legal. In the US, it would be the difference between saying Ramadan is a dumb celebration and that the Hajj is pointless and suggesting that we should force feed Muslims when they are trying to fast and firebomb Mecca. As far as I know, Charlie Hebdo did a lot of the first and absolutely none of the second.
Also, having hate speech laws (or libel or slander or copyright or many other types of laws) is an exception that proves the rule. You'd have a hard time convincing most people that having a hate speech law means you don't have free speech.
there is no such thing as an 'exception that proves a rule'. think about it (actually thinking, so difficult i know), an exception is the opposite of what proof is.
you ought to have a hard time convincing people that they have freedom of expression when 99% of people's opinions are obtained via the circulation of information for corporate profit, but no it's much easier to interpret any critical thought as being somehow blaming the cartoonists. guess what? no one is talking about the cartoonists, or their intentions, or whether they are worthy of being blamed or praised.
the next time something like this happens it will again become super mysterious to the vast majority of people, probably cause propaganda works even when there are other sources of information available.
you ought to have a hard time convincing people that they have freedom of expression when 99% of people's opinions are obtained via the circulation of information for corporate profit, but no it's much easier to interpret any critical thought as being somehow blaming the cartoonists. guess what? no one is talking about the cartoonists, or their intentions, or whether they are worthy of being blamed or praised.
the next time something like this happens it will again become super mysterious to the vast majority of people, probably cause propaganda works even when there are other sources of information available.