Je Suis Mila

One eyed Jack

The Toadman wrote: »

As a conservative white male, why should I care? Most women blindly accepted immigration and Islam into Europe. Men like me who warned them about the downside of diversity were called Nazis and bigots.

Ever see the video of the French feminists raging because the Arabs don't let women into their cafes? I just laughed. This is future you voted for.

I think you’ll find that it is mainly conservative white males who formulate immigration policies, certainly not feminists, since you want to play identity politics :pac: “Most women” didn’t vote for anything, because most women don’t dictate immigration policy either.

People like you who “warned” about the downside of diversity should care about this particular girl because she is of the same opinions as you are regarding Muslims in France. To describe you as bigoted is entirely accurate, not sure about Nazi though.

s7ryf3925pivug

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s the French authorities who will decide what does or doesn’t constitute hate speech, according to their laws.

You're one of those sockpuppets alt right types use to try to make liberals look looney, right? I'm pretty sure real people don't think like this. You're the imaginary type of person this thread was aimed at.

Granny15

The Toadman wrote: »

Yes I do enjoy seeing women experiencing the reality of diversity.

You sound like a black man de flowered your wife.

MMXX

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think what we think in relation to other religions does matter...

When I say it doesn't matter what we think - my point is: regardless of what we think, it does not matter, in other words - the people who we have outlined, the people that call for the execution of homosexuals, the execution of all apostates, the execution of all polytheists, the execution of all who criticize Islam and Muhammad, the execution of all blasphemers - and the execution of all who proselytize any religion other than Islam, those people - they will not care in the slightest, what we think. What we think, is not important - to them, that is my point.

s7ryf3925pivug

The Toadman wrote: »

Yes I do enjoy seeing women experiencing the reality of diversity.

Well it was a girl in this case, not a woman, and she was criticizing islam - not that her attitudes in that regard should matter one way or another. Vile attitude in any case.

s7ryf3925pivug

The Toadman wrote: »

Why should I give a ****? Women have made their bed, let them sleep in it.

Again, not giving a **** is different to delighting in a kid fearing for her life.

One eyed Jack

Alicia Clean Monster wrote: »

You're one of those sockpuppets alt right types use to try to make liberals look looney, right? I'm pretty sure real people don't think like this. You're the imaginary type of person this thread was aimed at.

You’re not making any sense. Would you like to try that again?

Once more, with coherence.

One eyed Jack

The Toadman wrote: »

I just laugh at all. Lesbian white girl gets rape and death threats because she insulted the masterrace religion. And then the liberals come down on the side of the Muslims. It's a fcuking clown world. But it's a small price to pay for having 50 kebab shops on main st, am I right?

You can't make it up.

You just made up that whole scenario though? It appears you can indeed make up whatever you want.

s7ryf3925pivug

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re not making any sense. Would you like to try that again?

Once more, with coherence.

I started to respond to your previous post. I got a link to an article outlining hate speech laws in France, prepared to distinguish the (fncking obvious) difference between saying x is sh!t in my opinion and throwing slurs at people. I thought -I'll just suggest replacing the word islam with something neutral to make my point.

Then I realised -nope this is nonsense, this is someone disingenuous trying to trick me into thinking like the OP. So I deleted all that and called you out in that regard. Go away Santa Claus I don't believe in you.

One eyed Jack

MMXX wrote: »

When I say it doesn't matter what we think - my point is: regardless of what we think, it does not matter, in other words - the people who we have outlined, the people that call for the execution of homosexuals, the execution of all apostates, the execution of all polytheists, the execution of all who criticize Islam and Muhammad, the execution of all blasphemers - and the execution of all who proselytize any religion other than Islam, those people - they will not care in the slightest, what we think. What we think, is not important - to them, that is my point.

I get what you mean, but I don’t think that’s true. Clearly as demonstrated by the fact that they descended in such numbers on someone who expressed an opinion they disagreed with, they do care what people think. She cares what people think too, that’s why she was assuming a positive outcome of telling that guy to fcuk off. It didn’t go as she expected when she then launched into a rant about Islam.

That was never going to go down well in a country like France, and that’s why the OP attempting to substitute Islam for Catholicism and place it in an Irish context was presenting a completely different scenario. People rant about Catholicism all the time in Ireland, it’s nothing like how religion is viewed in France, whether it’s Catholicism or Islam. In Ireland we’re generally far more laissez-faire when it comes to religion, whereas in France they’re very tetchy about the whole idea of how religion influences French society.

One eyed Jack

Alicia Clean Monster wrote: »

I started to respond to your previous post. I got a link to an article outlining hate speech laws in France, prepared to distinguish the (fncking obvious) difference between saying x is sh!t in my opinion and throwing slurs at people. I thought -I'll just suggest replacing the word islam with something neutral to make my point.

Then I realised -nope this is nonsense, this is someone disingenuous trying to trick me into thinking like the OP. So I deleted all that and called you out in that regard. Go away Santa Claus I don't believe in you.

Well, your second attempt isn’t any better than your first, but for what it’s worth, I have no interest in “tricking” you into anything, let alone thinking anything like what was represented by the opening post where the OP, much like yourself, tried to be clever, and only ended up confusing people.

MMXX

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get what you mean, but I don’t think that’s true. Clearly as demonstrated by the fact that they descended in such numbers on someone who expressed an opinion they disagreed with, they do care what people think.

And I get what you mean, to an extent - but there are probably little things that we will not agree on, and that's OK?

I'm going to bow out on this one now! You have much bigger, much more complex fish than me to fry here, best of luck!!

Gynoid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, your second attempt isn’t any better than your first, but for what it’s worth, I have no interest in “tricking” you into anything, let alone thinking anything like what was represented by the opening post where the OP, much like yourself, tried to be clever, and only ended up confusing people.

No Jack, I simply used an analogy. It is okay, it is simply a rhetorical device meant to stimulate a different view on things, calm down. I did not even plan it. It came to mind after I wrote the title and before I composed the body of the OP. I thought how horrible is this situation, imagine if it happened here.
And off I went quite quickly and used a simple analogy. Which in spite of your insistence is not a million miles removed from the facts.

Some people are using the word trick or tricky but I think this reflects their own inner feeling of confusion about what opinion to have in this case. They feel it is tricky to know what way the land lies, what opinion is kosher, and so feel they have been tricked.

One eyed Jack

Gynoid wrote: »

No Jack, I simply used an analogy. It is okay, it is simply a rhetorical device meant to stimulate a different view on things, calm down. I did not even plan it. It came to mind after I wrote the title and before I composed the body of the OP. I thought how horrible is this situation, imagine if it happened here.
And off I went quite quickly and used a simple analogy. Which in spite of your insistence is not a million miles removed from the facts.

Some people are using the word trick or tricky but I think this reflects their own inner feeling of confusion about what opinion to have in this case. They feel it is tricky to know what way the land lies, what opinion is kosher, and so feel they have been tricked.

It’s quite clear you didn’t plan on it as it wasn’t a very well thought out analogy, it was absolutely an attempt to trick people using a rhetorical device commonly known as bait and switch - presenting a particular set of circumstances as if they actually happened, and then the ‘gotcha’ at the end of it. I don’t see how it at all closely relates to the facts when it’s a completely different scenario?

I’m not the least bit confused by what I feel was indeed an attempt to trick people, but you’re welcome to believe your ruse worked to bolster an opinion you held of other people before you ever started the thread. I don’t think you’re in any position to criticise anyone else for their insincerity when you present a false predicament in the first place to test them, and then try to claim it wasn’t an attempt to trick your target audience.

It didn’t work out as you’d hoped or expected. The experiment didn’t demonstrate your hypothesis because the methodology was so badly flawed.

ghost of ireland past

The fundamental issue here is the existence of a group of people who are willing to use violence to change people's behaviour.

Violence, or the threat of it, pays, as most people give in to the threat for an easy life.

Criminal gangs are very good at this, like the Mafia traditionally but now the there's all the South American gangs, like MS-13, but other groups can also use these methods of intimidation and control.

The only way to deal with them is not to let them into your society. Once they start they are hard to eradicate.

Gynoid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s quite clear you didn’t plan on it as it wasn’t a very well thought out analogy, it was absolutely an attempt to trick people using a rhetorical device commonly known as bait and switch - presenting a particular set of circumstances as if they actually happened, and then the ‘gotcha’ at the end of it. I don’t see how it at all closely relates to the facts when it’s a completely different scenario?

I’m not the least bit confused by what I feel was indeed an attempt to trick people, but you’re welcome to believe your ruse worked to bolster an opinion you held of other people before you ever started the thread. I don’t think you’re in any position to criticise anyone else for their insincerity when you present a false predicament in the first place to test them, and then try to claim it wasn’t an attempt to trick your target audience.

It didn’t work out as you’d hoped or expected. The experiment didn’t demonstrate your hypothesis because the methodology was so badly flawed.

You can spout whatever BS you like and accuse away with your silly hypotheses and assumptions of motive, and false presumptions of my opinions. You have argued non -stop on here that a 16 year old girl deserved to be threatened with rape and death for criticising a religion so I don't much care at all what you think about anything really.

One eyed Jack

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

The fundamental issue here is the existence of a group of people who are willing to use violence to change people's behaviour.

Violence, or the threat of it, pays, as most people give in to the threat for an easy life.

Criminal gangs are very good at this, like the Mafia traditionally but now the there's all the South American gangs, like MS-13, but other groups can also use these methods of intimidation and control.

The only way to deal with them is not to let them into your society. Once they start they are hard to eradicate.

I don’t know what society you live in, but in the society I live in, I’m glad we’re not so keen on thought crime. That’s why we don’t presume people are guilty of having committed any wrongdoing and punish them on the basis that they might one day do something wrong.

You’re conflating two very different issues there anyway- the people who live in our society already who do wrong, and immigrants into our society who have done nothing wrong. I wouldn’t advocate holding anyone else responsible for someone else’s crimes.

One eyed Jack

Gynoid wrote: »

You can spout whatever BS you like and accuse away with your silly hypotheses and assumptions of motive, and false presumptions of my opinions. You have argued non -stop on here that a 16 year old girl deserved to be threatened with rape and death for criticising a religion so I don't much care at all what you think about anything really.

Yeah, that never happened either :pac:

TomSweeney

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As far as I’m aware, neither liberals, conservatives or progressives are pushing for anything here. The article you’re quoting directly from indicates that prosecutors are investigating whether or not the original comments amount to hate speech! There are no blasphemy laws either in France or Ireland so the opening post trying to make a point about blasphemy laws is just... strange, to be honest.





It’s unlikely that the DPP would be looking at whether or not something said against Catholicism in Ireland amounted to hate speech, simply because it is unlikely to offend anyone. That’s why when the goon with a plastic bag on his head referred to “haunted bread” on the Late Late Show, trying to appear edgy and provoke a reaction, nobody really gave a shìte, leaving him I’d imagine, somewhat disappointed.

“Muh freedom of expression” doesn’t mean people have the right to behave like inconsiderate assholes. That applies to everyone, in a democratic society.

wow.
just wow.




So she was being an inconsiderate asshole ?



Do you believe people should be allowed to say what they want about Islam ?
or do you think it should be protected - seems like the latter.

take everything

Whatever about this, that whole "je suis Charlie" was one big stinking turd of nonsense.

Surely if you are Charlie, you would uphold your right to mock, satirise, hold up to ridicule or just scrutiny any political or religious organisation, as any Western society should have the balls to do.

God it hurts thinking how rotten and craven that response to religious terrorism was.

And every woke weasel/dope with their Red white and blue flag going along with it.

Ridiculous.

MoonUnit75

take everything wrote: »

Whatever about this, that whole "je suis Charlie" was one big stinking turd of nonsense.

Surely if you are Charlie, you would uphold your right to mock, satirise, hold up to ridicule or just scrutiny any political or religious organisation, as any Western society should have the balls to do.

God it hurts thinking how rotten and craven that response to religious terrorism was.

And every woke weasel/dope with their Red white and blue flag going along with it.

Ridiculous.

Yes that was entertaining to watch them scramble to reframe their initial reaction once they realised Charlie Hebdo had a history of lampooning their second favourite brand of fundementalism.

One eyed Jack

TomSweeney wrote: »

wow.
just wow.

So she was being an inconsiderate asshole ?

Yes, she was being an inconsiderate asshole, and she’s still being an inconsiderate asshole when she still thinks she can say what she likes -


Freedom of expression, you know about it – I am not shying away from saying what I think of it.

” I hate religion. The Koran is a religion of hate, there is only hate in there. Islam is ****ty. It’s what I think, damn it, I’m only saying what I think.

“I am not racist, but not at all. You can’t be racist about a religion. But there people who think you can. Stupid, how stupid can you be!

“So, you can’t be racist about a religion. I spoke my mind. I’m entitled to it and I don’t regret it. You are not going to make me regret it.

“There are people who will be upset with me because I’m expressing what I think. I don’t care. I say what I want and what I think. Your religion is ****ty.

“Your house of worship, I put it in my butt. Bye.

“You insult me and you threaten my life. You have no education, you are worthless and useless.”


Taken from here - FRANCE: Will “Je Suis Mila” become the new “Je Suis Charlie Hebdo?”

TomSweeney wrote: »

Do you believe people should be allowed to say what they want about Islam ?
or do you think it should be protected - seems like the latter.

No, I don’t believe people should be allowed to say what they want about Islam, I don’t believe people should be allowed to say what they want about anything. My point is that if a person believes they have the right to say what they like about anything, then they must be prepared to acknowledge the idea that everyone has the equal right to say what they like, if that is the kind of society they wish to live in, where everyone has the right to say what they like, and nobody has any responsibility to be civil to anyone else.

It’s a philosophy which quickly comes back to bite them in the ass, as it did in this case, where she is now attempting to portray herself as a victim because she can’t handle the fact that other people too are entitled to say what they like to her. Fortunately for her, French authorities disagree with her up her own arse philosophy which is likely to get her killed.

MoonUnit75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, she was being an inconsiderate asshole, and she’s still being an inconsiderate asshole when she still thinks she can say what she likes -


Freedom of expression, you know about it – I am not shying away from saying what I think of it.

” I hate religion. The Koran is a religion of hate, there is only hate in there. Islam is ****ty. It’s what I think, damn it, I’m only saying what I think.

“I am not racist, but not at all. You can’t be racist about a religion. But there people who think you can. Stupid, how stupid can you be!

“So, you can’t be racist about a religion. I spoke my mind. I’m entitled to it and I don’t regret it. You are not going to make me regret it.

“There are people who will be upset with me because I’m expressing what I think. I don’t care. I say what I want and what I think. Your religion is ****ty.

“Your house of worship, I put it in my butt. Bye.

“You insult me and you threaten my life. You have no education, you are worthless and useless.”


Taken from here - FRANCE: Will “Je Suis Mila” become the new “Je Suis Charlie Hebdo?”





No, I don’t believe people should be allowed to say what they want about Islam, I don’t believe people should be allowed to say what they want about anything. My point is that if a person believes they have the right to say what they like about anything, then they must be prepared to acknowledge the idea that everyone has the equal right to say what they like, if that is the kind of society they wish to live in, where everyone has the right to say what they like, and nobody has any responsibility to be civil to anyone else.

It’s a philosophy which quickly comes back to bite them in the ass, as it did in this case, where she is now attempting to portray herself as a victim because she can’t handle the fact that other people too are entitled to say what they like to her. Fortunately for her, French authorities disagree with her up her own arse philosophy which is likely to get her killed.

TL/DR: Your right to insult islam ends where their right to cut your head off and hang it from a lampost begins.

TomSweeney

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, she was being an inconsiderate asshole, and she’s still being an inconsiderate asshole when she still thinks she can say what she likes -


Freedom of expression, you know about it – I am not shying away from saying what I think of it.

” I hate religion. The Koran is a religion of hate, there is only hate in there. Islam is ****ty. It’s what I think, damn it, I’m only saying what I think.

“I am not racist, but not at all. You can’t be racist about a religion. But there people who think you can. Stupid, how stupid can you be!

“So, you can’t be racist about a religion. I spoke my mind. I’m entitled to it and I don’t regret it. You are not going to make me regret it.

“There are people who will be upset with me because I’m expressing what I think. I don’t care. I say what I want and what I think. Your religion is ****ty.

“Your house of worship, I put it in my butt. Bye.

“You insult me and you threaten my life. You have no education, you are worthless and useless.”


Taken from here - FRANCE: Will “Je Suis Mila” become the new “Je Suis Charlie Hebdo?”





No, I don’t believe people should be allowed to say what they want about Islam, I don’t believe people should be allowed to say what they want about anything. My point is that if a person believes they have the right to say what they like about anything, then they must be prepared to acknowledge the idea that everyone has the equal right to say what they like, if that is the kind of society they wish to live in, where everyone has the right to say what they like, and nobody has any responsibility to be civil to anyone else.

It’s a philosophy which quickly comes back to bite them in the ass, as it did in this case, where she is now attempting to portray herself as a victim because she can’t handle the fact that other people too are entitled to say what they like to her. Fortunately for her, French authorities disagree with her up her own arse philosophy which is likely to get her killed.

So from the bold above - they had the right to threaten to murder and rape her ???!!




People like you are part of the problem.


Enablers.

One eyed Jack

TomSweeney wrote: »

So from the bold above - they had the right to threaten to murder and rape her ???!!

People like you are part of the problem.

Enablers.

No, they do not.

She also does not have the right to say what she likes. I’m not defending their behaviour, I’m not defending hers either. I have no interest in enabling anyone to behave like an asshole and expect someone else to have to deal with their mess. If they’re old enough and bold enough to think they can say what they like, then they are old enough and bold enough to understand that their actions have consequences.

take everything

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, they do not.

She also does not have the right to say what she likes. I’m not defending their behaviour, I’m not defending hers either. I have no interest in enabling anyone to behave like an asshole and expect someone else to have to deal with their mess. If they’re old enough and bold enough to think they can say what they like, then they are old enough and bold enough to understand that their actions have consequences.

Are you equating
"Your sky fairy stuff is rubbish. I've never had any time for it. In fact, sky fairy stuff in general is rubbish"
and threats to kill and rape.

MoonUnit75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, they do not.

She also does not have the right to say what she likes. I’m not defending their behaviour, I’m not defending hers either. I have no interest in enabling anyone to behave like an asshole and expect someone else to have to deal with their mess. If they’re old enough and bold enough to think they can say what they like, then they are old enough and bold enough to understand that their actions have consequences.

You don’t seem to be taking into account the response to contrary opinions can be extremely disproportionate. Thats the heart of the matter. If she said what she said about Liverpool fans they might giver her a bit of stick on Twitter. They won’t send extremely credible threats to her physical safety.

You have to think in terms of severity of the reaction as well as the actual words spoken. You don’t seem inclined to take this into account at all and that is a major problem in supposedly secular, open democracies.

If the severity of the reaction to certain utterances is wildly disproportionate then we have a democratic crisis to face up to sooner or later.

One eyed Jack

take everything wrote: »

Are you equating
"Your sky fairy stuff is rubbish. I've never had any time for it. In fact, sky fairy stuff in general is rubbish"
and threats to kill and rape.

Exactly. Neither idea are particularly credible, are they?

Kids on social media, whatcha gonna do, y’know? Plug out the router I suppose. The literal definition of first world problem, easily solved.

Ironicname

One eyed Jack wrote:

She also does not have the right to say what she likes.

That's where I need to pull you up on that bull****.

Why?

take everything

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Exactly. Neither idea are particularly credible, are they?

Kids on social media, whatcha gonna do, y’know? Plug out the router I suppose. The literal definition of first world problem, easily solved.

Why do you not believe that the girl believes what she said about religion.

And people have been prosecuted for making threats to kill on the internet, haven't they. Why would you not believe such a threat. Especially since she was warned by the police she may be in danger.

What you're saying doesn't add up at all.