/lit/ - Literature

File: 465 KB, 472x594, _80116674_charliehebdocover.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 01:46:25 2015 No.5966435 [Reply] [Original]

This was the last cover of Charlie Hebdo before they were attacked by muslims. It reads: "The predictions of fortune-teller Houellebecq. 'In 2015, I lose my teeth ... in 2022, I fast for Ramadan.'"

What do you think will be in store for Houellebecq 'whose latest novel imagines a France run by an Islamic party, where women are encouraged to wear veils, polygamy is legal and the Koran is taught at universities.'? A fatwa like Rushdie, or straight up assassination?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 01:53:00 2015 No.5966458 Probably nothing? The wilayah of /lit/ needs someone to draw up a fatwa condemning Hollaback/France/current events threads.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 01:54:49 2015 No.5966466 Doesn't the former lead to the latter, though?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 01:59:11 2015 No.5966478
File: 174 KB, 1376x774, _80118019_80117600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5966458
>Probably nothing?
But the Islamic terrorists stormed the magazines offices, executed the editor, then executed most of the journalists and writers just for promoting Houellebecq's new book because it attacks islam. You really think they'll let Houellebecq off?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 01:59:21 2015 No.5966480 I think what's in store for Houellebecq is a lifetime of trying to be edgy and having his airport bookstand level trash eaten up by the same lonely housewives and computer programmers who read Murakami and pretend it's for the symbolism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:04:02 2015 No.5966490 >>5966480 Go to bed, Franco.Houellebecq is the best writer of our era. .. b-but muh pinecone and duffledubs and McCarthy are proper literature and not for plebs. I only read highbrow, mom. Yeah, fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:05:29 2015 No.5966492 >>5966480 /lit/ doesn't like Murakami anymore? What happened?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:06:41 2015 No.5966496 >>5966492 They finally read him

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:07:52 2015 No.5966503 >>5966490 Enjoy your fap material wrapped in populist issues, anon, idgaf if you jack it to cripples.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:09:42 2015 No.5966507 >>5966478 Actually they primarily executed cartoonists. This seems to have been revenge for the Mohammad cartoon back in 2011, not anything recent.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:11:35 2015 No.5966513 >>5966496 The only thing really lacking is his prose which I can't even be sure of since it's a translation. At least Kafka on th Shore is solid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:11:55 2015 No.5966515 >>5966435 >whose latest novel imagines a France run by an Islamic party, where women are encouraged to wear veils, polygamy is legal and the Koran is taught at universities do people take this guy seriously? that's some turner diaries tier shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:15:01 2015 No.5966522 >>5966515 The twist is that France suddenly experiences a new golden age due to Islam

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:15:22 2015 No.5966524 >>5966515 it takes a lot of courage to criticize the turner diaries

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:15:28 2015 No.5966525 >>5966515 >1. scare people shitless >2. everyone votes Front National next election

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:15:37 2015 No.5966527 >>5966492 We never liked him, newfag.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:15:54 2015 No.5966528 >>5966515 You I like shitting on /pol/ as the next guy but the projected demographic shifts don't make those predictions unrealistic at all

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:18:02 2015 No.5966536

Man, Houllebecq was my favourite contemporary author and now he's permanently tied to these ethno-nationalist doomsday politics. His leftist detractors have also been attacking him with even more venom now that he's fully mired in the "Islamophobic" dialogue. Before he just caused a lot of angst among his critics which was always amusing but now we have to put up with boneheads like so >>5966480 who pretend to know about his work and deride his ability as a writer because he seems to present some ideas that offends their multiculturalist sensibilities.

What's the most agonizing thing is that the book isn't even about the issue of immigration.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:18:44 2015 No.5966539 >>5966527 Why?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:19:23 2015 No.5966542 >>5966515 He himself doesn't take it seriously. He admits that he's simply being sensationalist for the sake of plot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:19:52 2015 No.5966545 >>5966536 Maybe that should tip you off.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:20:29 2015 No.5966546 >>5966536 >boneheads like so >>5966480 # who pretend to know about his work So you didn't read his book about lonely computer programmers and fucking cripples, or you thought the book had some grander merit than a Murakami beach book?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:22:46 2015 No.5966550

>>5966478
pretty sure it wasn't exclusively for sensationalist Hollaback, but rather years and years of irreverently treating Islamic figures/topics

my vote is he gets fatwa, which only encourages butthurt ethno-nationalists. I wasn't around for the Rushdie fiasco but I reckon it was similar if not a decade late on the immigration issue

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:27:28 2015 No.5966560 >>5966515 He's just gonna plagiarize Camp of the Saints.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:30:35 2015 No.5966570 >>5966545 About what?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:35:31 2015 No.5966579 >>5966570 Think about it bright boy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:37:17 2015 No.5966583 >>5966579 No, why don't you stop being a condescending prick for 5 seconds and explain it to me?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 02:46:45 2015 No.5966597

It's the french governments fault.

Houellebecq said this immediately after the September 11 attacks: "“I say to myself that the fact of believing in a single god is the behaviour of a cretin, I can’t find another word. And the stupidest religion is, let’s face it, Islam … the Bible, at least, is beautiful, the Jews have a huge literary talent … and for that they can be forgiven much.”

And guess what the French government did? They arrested him and made him stand trial for 'inciting racism and provoking racial hatred'.

Now they live in a country where Muslims will firebomb media outlets, execute editors, commit mass terrorism and murder in the name of Islam, yet one writer who says "islam is a stupid religion" gets handcuffed and dragged before a jury.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:03:52 2015 No.5966636 >>5966527 THIS. redditors pls go

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:11:54 2015 No.5966652 >>5966597 Houellebecq was acquitted, and won court cases against civil rights groups on the basis of freedom of speech. nice cherry-picking though, I'm sure the charlie hebdo murderers will get the same leniency when caught.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:18:39 2015 No.5966666 File: 172 KB, 1024x780, 1416683156121.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw his next novel becomes center of controversy >mfw becomes international bestseller a la satanic verses >mfw shooting was a conspiracy by hullacheck and his publishers

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:19:54 2015 No.5966668 File: 20 KB, 344x188, 344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5966666 Impressive

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:20:39 2015 No.5966669

>>5966652
He didn't win on the basis of freedom of speech, he won because it was determined that what he said didn't pertain to inciting racial hatred, which is an important difference, because there's the inference that freedom of speech wouldn't protect him from being convicted if he did indeed say something that constituted such. And the fact that you can even be tried for something as bogus as that, that such a law exists, is in itself a damning realization.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:27:12 2015 No.5966679 >People still haven't read the Paris Review interview and still don't know that he's softened his views on both Islam and Religion in general, and that this book is more utopia than distopia.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:33:36 2015 No.5966688 File: 4 KB, 285x237, 1370934696189.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5966666 You just got quints. Tell us how you feel.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:33:41 2015 No.5966689

>>5966669
Why do people cling to the notion that free speech is something that needs defending?

Here in the UK we don't even pretend to have free speech, and it's a good thing. The public order act, for example, makes it a criminal offense to say anything vulgar or inciting hatred in public. If I stood in front of an abortion clinic and said "You are a murdering cunt, I hope you die in hell," I'd be arrested. If I stood in an art gallery and said "That painting is fucking shit, it looks like the artist shat on the canvas and painted it with his cock," I'd be arrested.

So called champions of free-speech call this outrageous. I'd rather live in a society where the kind of individuals who would stand outside abortion clinics or inside gallery making lewd and obnoxious comments are stopped.

At the bottom of the argument lies the fact that certain things people 'say' can have a huge impact. Just because something is expelled from the mouth in the form of speech doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Do you think Mugabe, or Kim Jong Un, or Hun Sen should be able to stand before a jury and say "I didn't personally kill anybody, I just spoke to other people and convinced them too, and like, free speech, yo"? Wars can be waged, genocides committed, people murdered or raped or tortured all by the speech of another, and as a result speech needs to be regulated.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:36:46 2015 No.5966694 File: 317 KB, 790x790, 1413923599850.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5966666

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:36:58 2015 No.5966695

>>5966689
>, I just spoke to other people and convinced them too, and like, free speech, yo
You're not making as fine of a distinction as you should here. If art "inspires" violence, should the creator be arrested? If not, then where you distinguish art from regular comments?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:40:51 2015 No.5966704

>>5966689
i personally think being able to say whatever you want is nice. i mean, yeah, if you don't like free speech, i guess that's your prerogative, but a world where people are afraid to express their opinions isn't one in which i want to live.

>Just because something is expelled from the mouth in the form of speech doesn't mean it's not dangerous.

words in and of themselves can't cause harm, actions can. all restrictions on speech are on speech that can cause harmful actions (fire in a crowded theatre) but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:45:07 2015 No.5966714 >>5966688 pretty good, shitposting pays off

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:46:01 2015 No.5966717

>>5966689
>Do you think Mugabe, or Kim Jong Un, or Hun Sen should be able to stand before a jury and say "I didn't personally kill anybody, I just spoke to other people and convinced them too, and like, free speech, yo"? Wars can be waged, genocides committed, people murdered or raped or tortured all by the speech of another, and as a result speech needs to be regulated.

Luckily American law distinguishes between coercion, threats, and ordinary speech.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:47:08 2015 No.5966720 Houellebecq isn't a good enough writer that his assassination would be any kind of tragedy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:48:00 2015 No.5966724 File: 70 KB, 524x542, 1397857611405.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5966714 That's quite interesting. Well I hope you enjoy your newfound success in the get business, we'll be watching for your next coup ha-ha!

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:52:09 2015 No.5966731

>>5966695
>If art "inspires" violence, should the creator be arrested? If not, then where you distinguish art from regular comments?

I think the 'what constitutes art' question is irrelevant. As is the line in the sand between the voicing of an opinion against the inciting of criminal or dangerous acts. In answer to your question though, yes, I believe the creator should be prevented. As an extreme example, consider Hitler standing in the loft of the Munich Hofbräuhaus presenting canvases with Banksy-esque stenciled slogans reading "In my opinion, we should be gassing the Juden," and presenting every single one of his speeches under the guise of 'art'.

Image the backlash, even from the free speech defenders, if a contemporary musician already in the public eye, say, Taylor Swift or someone, released a song full of lyrics like, "I'm being serious, I fucking hate niggers. Like, really fucking hate them. They are subhumans and need to be exterminated to defend white America. Phase 1: I ask all of you to don white bedsheets with the eyes cut out and burn crosses on the lawn of any nigger living in your neighborhood. Phase 2: unlicensed weapons can be purchased with bitcoins on..." If there were ten thousand cases of neo-KKK teenagers burning crosses the next week, how well do you think 'muh art' would work in her defense?

The hard question is what speech 'ought' to be tolerated in our society?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:56:35 2015 No.5966742

>>5966731
Freedom of speech also allows for people to freely shit all over offensive art. Taylor Swift can put out that song and her sponsors can freely drop her and her label can freely terminate her contract without it ever being a "free speech" issue (which would imply government involvement).

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 03:59:18 2015 No.5966747

>>5966717
>Luckily American law distinguishes between coercion, threats, and ordinary speech.
Those three categories are not inherent properties of speech, but classifiers superimposed afterwords. It's always possible to present an idea in any one of them with similar results.

>>5966704
>words in and of themselves can't cause harm, actions can.
Words can 'cause' harm. I think you mean words themselves don't cause physical harm by their voicing alone. How many times have you seen Obama in the middle east with an automatic weapon? Now how many times have you seen an American in the middle east with an automatic weapon as a result of Obama's words?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 04:03:04 2015 No.5966755

>>5966689
Great, then we can no longer hold opinions like saying Islam is stupid.

But considering you think being 'lewd and obnoxious' should be grounds for arrest then there's no telling what other fucking absurd measures should be taken to police people's thoughts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 04:05:48 2015 No.5966762 How is Rushdie's Satanic Verses? Should I familiarize myself with the Quran and Mohammad's life before getting into it?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 04:08:23 2015 No.5966769

>>5966747
>Those three categories are not inherent properties of speech, but classifiers superimposed afterwords.

No shit.

>It's always possible to present an idea in any one of them with similar results.

"Always"? No. Not even close. There are close cases, sure, but the system isn't perfect. Luckily US courts aren't especially known to collapse into skepticism regarding language and the shared experience of the obvious is good enough for the goose and gander.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 04:11:10 2015 No.5966780

>>5966755
>Great, then we can no longer hold opinions like saying Islam is stupid.

What kind of opinions would you like to voice, Anon? Would you like to be able to stand on a soapbox saying that Muslims should be driven from the city with pitchforks, and any found still here tomorrow should be dismembered and their heads put on pikes? I mean that's your opinion too, right? What if the crowd agrees, though, and goes on that rampage? Do your think your hands are clean because you were only exercising your free speech. It's not your fault, right?

What about the Muslim standing on a soapbox calling for your head? Looking at you straight in the eyes and demanding that the crowd dismember you on the spot. Are you going to applaud as the knives enter your abdomen, and tell the murderous crowd how glad you are that he voiced his opinion?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 04:18:26 2015 No.5966795

>>5966780
Why are you exaggerating with ridiculous fucking strawmen? How is expressing an opinion on a religion akin to advocating violence?

You're not even arguing anything, all you're doing is concocting these grandiose scenarios built on emotional language. You're a nutjob.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 04:27:29 2015 No.5966819 >>5966795 >How is expressing an opinion on a religion akin to advocating violence? Are you really this dense? "I am of the opinion that we need to use violence to tackle this religious ideology."

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 04:33:10 2015 No.5966842 >>5966780 Exactly. We also shouldn't be allowed to criticize literature. What if somebody told the ignorant townsman that a certain writer ought to be shot, and then it happened?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 04:34:40 2015 No.5966846 >>5966747 >I think you mean words themselves don't cause physical harm by their voicing alone. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm also sure that I'd draw the line between unlawful speech and lawful speech at a much different point than you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 04:36:54 2015 No.5966858 >>5966762 You can read it without them. It actually gives a good history of Islam itself. I loved it. By far the best thing I read by this guy, who is usually one of the worst writers going.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 04:44:46 2015 No.5966881

>>5966842
>What if somebody told the ignorant townsman that a certain writer ought to be shot, and then it happened?

That's exactly what this thread is about. Yesterday, the writer Michel Houellebecq published an anti-islamic book, and a magazine put him on the cover and ran a feature. A few hours later the magazines offices were stormed by militant Islamists (not for the first time) and 12 people were executed. Your tongue in cheek comment - a writer being shot for something he said - may well be a reality in a few days, and already is the reality for the editor for the editor of that magazine.

Are you seriously saying that these extremists, calling for the death of those who insult islam, should be supported if they call for the death of this writer? Do you really think their freedom of speech is so important that we should stand there and clap if one says, "I think we should shoot this man for insulting Islam"?

You may condemn the action, the actual shooting, but the opinions of the Islamists who said "I think we should kill them for this," preceded that. Are those opinions really worth defending?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:14:13 2015 No.5966938

>>5966881
Their right to say so should be defended yes. There is a difference between defending someones right to say something and defending their actual statements. If they say something like that, then others should have the freedom to reply to it and criticize their fanatical beliefs. Whomever crosses the line of using physical violence first will the be dealt with by the law.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:27:47 2015 No.5966962

>>5966689

i'm beginning to come around to this viewpoint. the deplorable behavior of /b/ and /pol/ (stalking, harassment, death/rape threats) are representative of this very point. substitute "free speech" with "anonymity" and you get many of same reflexes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:28:52 2015 No.5966964 >>5966842 >and then it happened? Then that person would be held responsible for their action. It's pretty simple.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:31:18 2015 No.5966967

>>5966962
>the deplorable behavior of /b/ and /pol/ (stalking, harassment, death/rape threats) are representative of this very point

A crime is a crime. Somebody on /b/ stalking or harassing or threatening somebody has nothing to do with defending free speech.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:31:45 2015 No.5966969 >>5966515 They were literally attacked by muslims for words, reality is turner diaries shit to people from fifty years ago

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:34:18 2015 No.5966973

>>5966938
>Whomever crosses the line of using physical violence first will the be dealt with by the law.
The idea is prevention. If someone is threatening to kill someone, preventative action should be taken. A government policy that demands the police stand with folded arms, saying "yes, we know he wants to kill you, but we can't arrest him yet, he has to kill you first," would be a very shitty policy.

Fortunately, you are wrong, and we don't have to wait until someone 'crosses the line of using physical violence first'. We have 'conspiring' to commit various crimes. As much as you love your free speech, you will be (and rightfully so) arrested for declaring that you want to kill someone.

>There is a difference between defending someones right to say something and defending their actual statements.
Yeah, I hear a lot of people saying this. But if you were in the position of the magazine employees or that writer and heard of these verbal threats on your life, would you really be championing someones right to speech when they are threatening to kill you in the near future, or would you crack, back down, and call the police for protection?

Again, it is most fortunate that you are wrong, and even more fortunate that you are not in charge of government policy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:34:47 2015 No.5966975 >>5966478 Hb's book also doesn't attack islam

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:35:42 2015 No.5966977 >>5966967 i was merely pointing out that the method of justification are the same. that it's a weird strain in american culture to defend abstractions of principal, even when those abstractions are shown to be responsible for violent actions.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:36:22 2015 No.5966982

>>5966973
>As much as you love your free speech, you will be (and rightfully so) arrested for declaring that you want to kill someone.

People defending free speech acknowledge conspiracy, threats, etc. as illegal acts and are generally fine with the distinction.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:36:54 2015 No.5966983 >>5966689 Please tell me this is a joke post

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:37:46 2015 No.5966986 >tfw half arab in europe >tfw not muslim c-can we just have ideological purges and not ethnic ones pls

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:37:59 2015 No.5966987 >>5966977 abstractions on principle*

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:38:43 2015 No.5966991 >>5966977 >Saying someone's art is shit is worthy of jail time. Literally kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:39:43 2015 No.5966994 >>5966991 the subject is inciting to violence, not mere criticism. do read the read entirely.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:40:50 2015 No.5966999 >>5966991 >being arrested is the same as facing jail time i can't

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:42:37 2015 No.5967005

>>5966982

in america the subject is often confused. see for example this most recent and harmless example: http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/this-smartass-newspapers-response-to-a-gop-politician-i-1677889462/+burtreynoldsismyspiritguide1

incredible misunderstandings of the definition free speech abounds in this country.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:43:44 2015 No.5967009

>>5966991
>"That painting is fucking shit, it looks like the artist shat on the canvas and painted it with his cock,"

Because that certainly is inciting violence and not you being a prude faggot who wants to arrest anyone who hurts that says something mean and feelings.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:45:13 2015 No.5967014 >>5966994 your posts are so awful i'm going to kill myself. arrest this man please.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:45:35 2015 No.5967016 >>5966986 Learn Spanish.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:46:46 2015 No.5967019 File: 18 KB, 377x351, 083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5966999

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:47:22 2015 No.5967021 >>5967009 i still see no problem with arresting someone for causing a public nuisance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:47:27 2015 No.5967022 >>5967016 Honestly I think I'm whiter than most spaniards

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:48:22 2015 No.5967025 >>5967022 fuck off with this obnoxious race baiting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:49:07 2015 No.5967029 >>5966999 The mere act of punishment for something so innocuous is enough. If that's allowed then there's no point where any mere criticism of public art is safe from from having you face jail time.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:50:03 2015 No.5967033

>>5966982
>People defending free speech acknowledge conspiracy, threats, etc. as illegal acts and are generally fine with the distinction.

This thread doesn't demonstrate that, and I'd argue that most defenders of free speech are not fine with it; especially the more left and right extremists who support radical, and often bloody, revolutionary change. There is a very fine line there between illegal speech and tolerated speech, for example:

"I think our country is crumbling. in my opinion, our only choice is to expand our militia until we have the manpower to forcibly surround the autocade and kill the president."

That carefully used 'I think' and 'in my opinion', so could be construed as a subjective opinion and not a call for violence. If 'In my opinion' was replaced with 'we need to', then the argument changes, but the rhetoric doesn't.

Often with speech crimes the 'legality' is based on the ability of the lawyer and not on the specific words used. Take a look at some of the transcripts from Nelson Mandela early trials.

"I am going to kill you" is obvious, it's red. "I love you" is obvious too, it's on the other end and yellow. Yet many sentences will fall into orange.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:50:14 2015 No.5967034 >>5967021 Okay, well then, by being an anti-free speech psudo-rational edgy anon who's assuming he knows more about how speech should be handled than anyone else, I'm pretty sure you're a public nuisance worthy of arrest under your own rules.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:51:49 2015 No.5967039 >>5966858 >what is midnight's children

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:52:32 2015 No.5967040 >>5967029 'punishment' and 'so innocuous'? show don't tell

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:53:15 2015 No.5967043

>>5966689

well in america we would likewise arrest the man who stands in the middle of a gallery and creates a scene. he would be charged with disturbing the peace. it is a charge that has nothing to do with the content of his rant. however, it is true simultaneously that protestors who stand outside abortion clinics and harass patients are allowed to do so on the basis of free speech, so the law is clearly inconsistently applied.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:56:31 2015 No.5967053

>>5966991
>>Saying someone's art is shit is worthy of jail time.

Man stands in front of painting, turns to his wife, and says, "that painting is fucking bollocks. The artist can suck my cock." Around him is a group of 5yo's on a school trip with their teacher, also looking at the painting.

Now, the mans opinion, the not liking the painting, is fine, but the way he presented that opinion in public is not fine. Yes, he should be escorted away by security and police until he can function in society like a normal person.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:57:50 2015 No.5967062 >>5967021 And how is the content of that sentence alone indicative of some someone being a public nuisance?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:59:22 2015 No.5967067 >>5967062 it is not what he is saying, it is how he is saying it. if he's screaming and ranting then he deserves to be held accountable. if he is simply making a private comment to himself or to his partner then no.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 05:59:30 2015 No.5967069 >>5967062 i think that person should be arrested for having such a bad opinion about art

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:06:45 2015 No.5967091

>>5967062
>And how is the content of that sentence alone indicative of some someone being a public nuisance?

The original example stated a breech of the public order act, part of which states that it is illegal to cause offense with profane words in a public place where children could be present. Considering he said Shit, Fucking, and Cock, that constitutes being a public nuisance in relation to that act.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:13:08 2015 No.5967107 >>5967091 >muh appeal to law.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:13:56 2015 No.5967109

>>5967091
>The Police have been accused of misusing the powers in section 14 on several occasions. During the 2009 G-20 London summit protests journalists were forced to leave the protests by police who threatened them with arrest.[6][7][8]

Is protecting 5 year old children from words they'll learn later in life worth the abuse of legislation to control discourse within the public?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:14:07 2015 No.5967110 File: 892 KB, 4000x2667, cliveboober.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:14:13 2015 No.5967111 >>5967107 >muh appeal to muh the most ancient of informal fallacies

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:24:53 2015 No.5967140 >>5967111 hah, thanks for this. the "muh..." meme really is a logical fallacy of its own, isn't it. it's just a lazy short-circuit of critical thought.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:27:06 2015 No.5967147 >>5967109 >Is protecting 5 year old children from words they'll learn later in life Its not just protecting children, its everyone. It's not nice to be relaxing in a public place when some angry person is swearing and shouting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:35:17 2015 No.5967172 Was there ever an authoritarian modest enough to recognize the lines he draws as just as arbitrary as anyone else's.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:36:06 2015 No.5967175 >>5966780 They'll probably have your head on a pike in a few decades.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:49:20 2015 No.5967199 Why did Houellebecq move back to France from Ireland?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:55:59 2015 No.5967218 >>5966689 >The public order act, for example, makes it a criminal offense to say anything vulgar or inciting hatred in public. Cuck country.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 06:58:01 2015 No.5967226 >>5966967 We already have laws against threats, harassment, and stalking, we don't need to curtail free speech for that. And a thousand tumblrinas would get thrown in the clink for every /pol/tard if that shit was actually enforced m8.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 07:25:58 2015 No.5967305 >>5966986 Ethnic ones are better. Christians and mudslimes can somewhat live in peace. Atheists on the other hand always instigate fighting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 07:32:39 2015 No.5967315 File: 8 KB, 259x194, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Out of interest where would the best place to start with Houellebecq?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 07:43:33 2015 No.5967344 >>5966435 That's one ugly and unfunny cover. Thank you, Islam.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 07:46:14 2015 No.5967350 >>5966969 Motherfucker, three nutjobs isn't an organized Muslim takeover. This isn't Muslim Omaha Beach.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 07:52:11 2015 No.5967371 File: 185 KB, 620x913, PICT0001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5967315

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 09:52:57 2015 No.5967712 >>5967053 So you want it to be illegal to swear in public?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 09:59:11 2015 No.5967746 >>5966689 The public order acts are only ever invoked in Britain as justification for the police to preemptively shut down anything that might threaten the status quote. Congratulations on being a corporatist shill.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 10:05:53 2015 No.5967767

>>5967712
>the only options are letting a man use socially deplorable language around five year olds, or arresting everybody who swears in public anywhere always.
>being happy with this counter-argument
Come on anon, you can do better than that. False dichotomy is a weak man's crutch.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 10:14:24 2015 No.5967800

>>5967767
So it should be illegal to "use socially deplorable language" if children are around? As in, you actually think it seems reasonable to fine someone on this basis? (I'm assuming you mean fines, anyway, prison seems a bit extreme.) If so, why? What damage is this inarticulate art critic doing to the children? He's being a poor role model, granted, but if being a poor role model was illegal things would go to hell fairly quickly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 10:15:25 2015 No.5967806 >>5966513 japanese people hardly consider him a japanese writer because his japanese prose reads like it was translated from english.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 10:16:17 2015 No.5967808

>>5966515
But this is a very serious possibility. Maybe not yet in 2022 (as Houellebecq admits) but later on.

>>5966435
From what I've read in interviews, the greatest ruse is that in his book France actually becomes a better place with Islamic law in place.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 10:40:13 2015 No.5967895

>>5967800
Oh I'm not arguing with you anon, I just call out people using false arguments when I see it during my scrolling. I have no strong opinion either way.

By the way that's a strawman argument. The poster isn't trying to imply that being a poor role model should be illegal, and by elevating his point to that level you're making his position harder to defend without actually attacking the crux of his argument.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:10:21 2015 No.5967986 >>5966689 /mu/ poster truly worse than /pol/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:21:24 2015 No.5968030 >>5966435 English translation, when?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:27:26 2015 No.5968052

>>5966528
And how can you predict the prevalence of a faith from the prevalence of an ethnicity ? Islam isn't genetic you know.

Cases in point: many of the wannabe French jihadist came from non-practicing or non-muslim families, and the children of practicing muslim parents tend to become less involved in religion than their parents as they assimilate. There's also this example of a FN candidate who suddenly converted to Islam.

It's a matter of searching for an identity or meaning or way of life in an increasingly confused world, not a matter of having ancesters from North Africa.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:27:33 2015 No.5968053

>>5967800
>So it should be illegal to "use socially deplorable language" if children are around? As in, you actually think it seems reasonable to fine someone on this basis?

The answer seems to be in your question: "socially deplorable". If someone is doing or saying something 'socially deplorable' in a public space, it isn't unreasonable to ask them to stop under the threat of light fiscal punishment if the don't. On a beautiful tranquil beach, one mans right to free speech shouldn't automatically trump all the other citizens there. He may stand on a rock and start swearing and raving about something, but he is destroying the enjoyment of all the other people there, none of which want to hear this man. Just because you have a tongue, does not give you the right to flap it wherever you want, annoying and disrupting everyone. You have genitals, but you wouldn't go around exposing them to everyone, that would be 'socially deplorable'. You have a tongue, so why should you go around swearing and screaming in public places without consequence, when you yourself know that your actions are also 'socially deplorable'?

It's utilitarian at the heart. The majority of people don't want people around who are shouting and swearing. A small minority want the right to, apparently, shout and swear in art galleries (most of which are privately owned, and have the right to evict patrons anyway), but to maximize the benefit of the majority it becomes "socially deplorable" to this.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:30:02 2015 No.5968067

>>5968052
>Cases in point: many of the wannabe French jihadist came from non-practicing or non-muslim families
That's the dangerous part. People often say "but most Muslims are just moderates who quietly want to live their lives" but it's precisely their children who revive their Islamic identity because they feel trapped between cultures.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:32:25 2015 No.5968080 >>5966597 Apart for your point being basically nonexistent (see >>5966652), saying "Islam is a stupid religion because muh Bible and muh Jewish writers" is pretty high on the scale of retard, even by 4chan standards.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:33:52 2015 No.5968085 >>5966666 Breakings news: Hyperdiabolic Quints Expose Evil Conspiracy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:38:07 2015 No.5968109 >>5968053 The definition of 'socially deplorable' behaviour is prescribed by the ruling class.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:41:24 2015 No.5968123 >>5968067 A "moderate Muslim" is impossible, like a "moderate Nazi". All Muslims are complicit in the actions of fanatics. Besides, more Muslims in Western nations than you might expect actually explicitly condone the actions of radicals.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:47:53 2015 No.5968159 >>5968123 >All Muslims are complicit in the actions of fanatics Made me laugh, 7/10.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:49:36 2015 No.5968169 >>5968123 >more Muslims in Western nations than you might expect actually explicitly condone the actions of radicals. Citation Needed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:50:36 2015 No.5968172 >>5968123 yeah, fuck right off

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:54:26 2015 No.5968191

>>5968067
Sometimes the parents aren't even Muslims, simply from families who used to live in predominantly Muslim countries. Sometimes the "jihadists" aren't even real Muslims. For instance ome of the people who tried to flee to Syria to become part of ISIS turned out, after interrogation, to not speak a word of arabic. Some of them didn't even now what a surat was.

The problem is we mistake it for being a religious problem, or a problem about Islam (and that's how we get, as you say, people who state "most Muslims are moderate", as if that was the point at all), and get to argue the wrong issues. The problem is not Islam, it's alienation and radicalization.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:55:04 2015 No.5968194 >>5968123 Can you gimme some source on that? If this were true it would really align with my notions on Islam.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:55:22 2015 No.5968196 >>5968159 >>5968169 >>5968172 >All White people are guilty of the slave trade! >All White people are guilty of the Holocaust! >N-NO! I-ISLAM IS A PEACEFUL RELIGION, I-IGNORE WHAT THE KORAN SAYS, O-ONLY RADICALS ACTUALLY L-LISTEN TO MUHAMMED!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:58:17 2015 No.5968205 >>5968196 What is pathetic straw man?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:58:54 2015 No.5968206

>>5968194

there is no source. it's just a shitty right-wing talking point akin to "why don't we ever see any muslims speaking out against all this violence?" which is easily contradicted by a preponderance of evidence that they completely ignore/don't care about.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 11:59:25 2015 No.5968211 >>5968169 http://thespeaker.co/42-percent-muslims-polled-pew-research-think-suicide-bombing-violence-civilians-least-occasionally-justified/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:00:09 2015 No.5968214 >>5968196 You see to be filled with hate anon. There are reasons to dislike Whites and Muslims, but you should really check out that anger before you explode.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:01:10 2015 No.5968221 >>5968123 >A "moderate Christian" is impossible, like a "moderate Nazi". >A "moderate Conservative" is impossible, like a "moderate Nazi". Except, somehow we aren't all complaining about cold coffee in Norwegian jails.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:01:13 2015 No.5968222 >>5968206 Did he mean something in the Quran which condones something like "death to infidels"? I haven't read it, but how is that defensible to you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:02:58 2015 No.5968232 >>5968221 Totally. Yeah, no ones complaining about the cold coffee. Whatthefuckisupwiththatman??

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:04:32 2015 No.5968234 >>5968222 That would be a valid argument if: a) you had an actual quote b) it was mirrored by the actions of a majority of Muslims

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:04:41 2015 No.5968235 >>5968211 Those aren't western nations.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:05:44 2015 No.5968240

>>5968172
He's right though. To be a Muslim you must believe Muhammad is the prophet of Allah. If you believe this, he's thereby the guy that can rightfully say how shit should be done. In other words, this justifies Sharia as the proper law.

There is no way you can be an actual Muslim and be against Muslim law. Muslim law is per definition extremist by Western standards, so Muslims are per definition extremist by Western standards.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:06:10 2015 No.5968241

>>5968211
the(your?) original claim was that there are no moderate muslim, and that all muslims are complicit. and now you attempt to back that up with a pew poll that states 42% of muslims in 14 middle eastern and southeast asian countries (and pay attention to the wording of the question here) believe that violence against civilians is SOMETIMES considered justifiable. that certainly puts the poll in a different perspective, now doesn't it.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:06:30 2015 No.5968242
File: 345 KB, 429x551, isCharlie_Hebdo_Mohammed_overwhelmed_0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5966435
>What do you think will be in store for Houellebecq 'whose latest novel imagines a France run by an Islamic party, where women are encouraged to wear veils, polygamy is legal and the Koran is taught at universities.'? A fatwa like Rushdie, or straight up assassination?

This.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:07:02 2015 No.5968244 >>5968211 That's far too vague. The average America was for the war in Iraq, knowing that civilians would get killed, doesn't mean he's for every type of killing of civilians.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:07:54 2015 No.5968248 >>5967806 No, his prose reads like a typical LN. Still bland as fuck, of course.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:08:30 2015 No.5968250 File: 88 KB, 579x720, 1335640469062.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5968242 Or maybe this.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:09:55 2015 No.5968255

>>5968234

he doesn't have a quote. he just has a "gut feeling" and he hopes there's a quote around that he can use to retroactively justify it.

such is the case with most right-wing reactionaries. the reaction comes first, the evidence digging comes after the fact. completely ass-backward. never let another conservative tell you that he thinks liberals are all about their "feelings." they are the ones who are actually guilty of it, while protesting too much the entire time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:10:13 2015 No.5968258 >>5968240 Makes sense to me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:11:39 2015 No.5968262 >>5968250 Hehe. it's funny because it's intentionally offensive

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:12:25 2015 No.5968266 >>5968240 Yes, there's totally no debate regarding the meaning of Muhammad's words among Muslims, as there's not at all any issue of developments in language or what constitutes a defensive war, or similar questions.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:13:43 2015 No.5968270

>>5968240

and yet muslims do not uniformly even agree that a) sharia law should be implemented b) sharia law should be applicable to non-muslims, and c) what sharia law actually constitutes.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

go get educated or go get fucked.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:14:17 2015 No.5968272 >>5968262 Well, I wasn't really intending to be funny by posting that, but I was certainly intending to be offensive.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:15:14 2015 No.5968277 >>5968266 no debate? are you fucking retarded? centuries of debate of theology just don't exist right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:15:25 2015 No.5968278 >>5968266 Of course there is debate, but within certain boundaries. Even the most moderate interpretation is still extremist by Western standards.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:16:25 2015 No.5968281 >>5968270 Are you saying the majority of Muslims is against Muslim law? >>5968277 >what is sarcasm

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:18:39 2015 No.5968286

>>5968255
>there's a quote around that he can use to retroactively justify it
Well clearly. I stated that.

Being that the anon I had asked was saying he understands this so emphatically I can't help, but think he has something to support his notions.
BUT I'm not going to say peep about something if I don't understand everything I can about it.

You're assuming all conservatives are the same
You're assuming I'm Conservative for doubting the righteousness of Islam

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:19:07 2015 No.5968288

>>5968278

of course there are boundaries that frame the debate you idiot, but those boundries much different than whatever cartoonish conception you might have. see: >>5968270

>>5968281

it varies hugely state by state. and i'm saying that no one even agrees what muslim law is or how it should even be applied. don't simplify the argument you ignoramus.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:23:22 2015 No.5968300

>>5968277
I was being sarcastic.
>>5968278
No it isn't. There are Muslim interpretations of Muhammad's words that result in such strict and unforgiving definitions of a defensive war that it would put several Western nations to shame. Unless of course you mean that the source itself is unassailable, and only the interpretation is, which I guess is extremist by Western standards, where usually the lawmaker at least can be doubted. But then again, Western religion also tends to be like that.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:24:16 2015 No.5968306

>>5968286

your post had all the telltale marks of a /pol/-tier right-wing reactionary look ing desperately to confirm his ignorant and deplorable biases. this latest post doesn't contradict that notion.

>the righteousness of islam

motherfucker who/what do you even think you're arguing with here? you think anyone in here is legitimately arguing in favor of the divinity of koran? go away.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:24:56 2015 No.5968310 >>5968300 >only the interpretation isn't Fixed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:27:09 2015 No.5968316 >>5966881 >Are those opinions really worth defending? Yes. Unfortunately, all opinions are worth defending or none are. I don't like it any more than you sometimes, but that's it. Free speech is free speech, you can't have qualifiers.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:28:29 2015 No.5968321

>>5968300

you explained away your own position. that's a quality not at all unique to islam. what is unique to muslim/lapsed muslim populations right now is, as another preceptive poster mentioned somewhere upthread, is rampant alienation and radicalization. again, two qualities not endemic to islam. context.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:29:24 2015 No.5968324

The irony is that as society has come closer to the Houellebecq of previous book (ie Islam is a stupid, violent religion invented by goat-fuckers) Houellebecq has adopted a far more concilatory even on occasion pro-Islam tone

>But in the end the Koran turns out to be much better than I thought, now that I’ve reread it—or rather, read it. The most obvious conclusion is that the jihadists are bad Muslims. Obviously, as with all religious texts, there is room for interpretation, but an honest reading will conclude that a holy war of aggression is not generally sanctioned, prayer alone is valid. So you might say I’ve changed my opinion. That’s why I don’t feel that I’m writing out of fear. I feel, rather, that we can make arrangements. The feminists will not be able to, if we’re being completely honest. But I and lots of other people will.

>Europe is committing suicide and, in the middle of Europe, France is struggling desperately to survive. It is almost the only country that is fighting to survive, the only country whose demographics allow it to survive. Suicide is a matter of demographics, it’s the best and most effective way to commit suicide. That’s why France is not committing suicide at all. What’s more, for people to convert is a sign of hope, not a threat.

http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/01/02/scare-tactics-michel-houellebecq-on-his-new-book/

A lot of people buying this book hoping to see him laying into Muslims in France are going to come out feeling rather dis-satisfied

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:31:10 2015 No.5968330 >>5968316 Free speech doesn't mean some goons are going to come kill you for what you say. Free speech just means you have the right to say it. Whatever happens after that does not fall under the "free speech" header.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:32:48 2015 No.5968336

>>5968324

huh. this is actually interesting.

also a big "no shit" to the revelation that he hadn't even read the koran before making all of those incendiary, meme-worthy remarks the past few years. ignorance always announces its presence with its own stinking reek.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:32:59 2015 No.5968337

>>5968321
What? No, I didn't. I explained how Islam isn't automatically extremist, at least not unless you mean extremist in the way that any religion, ideology, or other field that claims the infallibility of someone. So yes, it is indeed not a quality unique to Islam to be extremist that way, nor to have levels of extremism, or adherents who aren't at all extremists according to certain definitions. You're right in what I said, but not in your conclusion that I explained away my own position. My position doesn't depend on Islam being unique in that regard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:33:14 2015 No.5968339 >>5968330 *some goons aren't going to come kill

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:33:35 2015 No.5968340 >>5967107 >And how is the content of that sentence alone indicative of some someone being a public nuisance? >public nuisance law explained >oh no you can't talk about the law WTF?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:36:44 2015 No.5968344

>>5967767

Speaking as a britbong, if they ever tried to enforce the law about not swearing in front of children, about 70% of the population would be banged up, so you can bollocks.

>implying that's not what HMG wants.

Who even defines what swearing is? If there's a sub-committee somewhere debating the relative profanity of shit, piss, cunt and motherfucker then I want in. I honestly feel I'm well-qualified for the job.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:40:56 2015 No.5968351 File: 57 KB, 385x500, kekkels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >there are still people who think we owe it to muslims to be reasonable with them at all

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:41:49 2015 No.5968353

>>5968330

I don't really understand your point.

Charlie Hebdo had the right to publish cartoons about whatever they want. Muslims have the right to say whatever they want - that's free speech.

If someone kills someone else over what they've said, that's a crime - murder.

My point is that both sides have the right to say whatever they want and neither side has the right to get upset because someone said mohammed has a dog dick, or on the other side, because someone on twitter threatened to kill a journalist because they disagree about vidya.

Everyone has the right to say what they want, and that includes offensive, terrible things.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:43:39 2015 No.5968358

>>5968324

I have no respect for that man.

The irony being that Marine LePen also said that there is nothing wrong with the Quran per se but with Muslims.

It's far easier to play the old card of "War of Civilizations" than theological criticism.

And Houellebecq is as reactionary as they come, the thing that disgusts me is the most is how his racism is disguised in the guise of the "aesthete" intellectual. The same kind of racist hatred Wagner had for the Jews because according t him they made "degenerate music" .

Fuck him and his sensationalist garbage.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:44:37 2015 No.5968360 File: 36 KB, 680x383, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5966435 >mfw after the hebdo attack most people are accepting that Islam is a completely fucked religion

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:44:45 2015 No.5968361 >>5968353 >the right to get upset not how it works champ

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:45:29 2015 No.5968362 >>5968358 How is he racist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:46:21 2015 No.5968366 >>5968360 You have the right to be brainwashed by the media like everyone has. It happened to the Americans with the Iraq invasion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:48:27 2015 No.5968372 >>5968362 >Muslims are going to implement Sharia law to to France even though they are 7% of the population because they hate our freedoms and western values. The mind of the reactionary stops were common sense begins.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:48:32 2015 No.5968373 >>5968361 What do you think you're trying to say here, champ?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:48:34 2015 No.5968374

>muslims have shown to often be a nuisance and a threat
>muslims have never shown to be an asset to society (individual muslims may have, but never as part of their muslimhood but rather in spite of it)

It only logically follows that it is a good idea to remove all muslims, even if you fuck over a few nice ones. Better safe than sorry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:49:36 2015 No.5968377 File: 87 KB, 736x495, islami.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5968372 Islam isn't a race, silly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:49:57 2015 No.5968378 File: 47 KB, 510x439, inbreeds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5968374 >It only logically follows

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:50:07 2015 No.5968379 >>5968372 >they are 7% of the population For now. Birthrates among white Europeans are even lower than Japanese birthrates. Thanks, Obama.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:50:30 2015 No.5968381 >>5968374 I'd feel a lot safer if they removed just you, to be honest.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:51:06 2015 No.5968383 >>5968372 Common sense would dictate that race is a construct here bent to include ideologies. Don't confuse physiology with culture.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:51:57 2015 No.5968386 >>5968378 Let's see three out of ten red snakes are poisonous and the other red snakes aren't but are don't have any use either. Someone asks you: How many red snakes would you like me to put in your garden? The sensible answer is: None.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:52:17 2015 No.5968388 File: 31 KB, 320x286, tard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5968379 >>5968379 >There are people who still believe this nonsense

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:52:41 2015 No.5968392

>>5968353
Murder is a crime, nobody said otherwise. You're not thinking about this.

>>5968353
>My point is that both sides have the right to say whatever they want

Yes. This is free speech.

>>5968353
>neither side has the right to get upset

No. This is pure invention on your part.

You, and a shitload of other people in this thread, are conflating "free speech" with some sort of magical, mystical immunity that whatever you say will result in no repercussions. You can say what you like. That is free speech. But, other people can dislike what you said and come kill you. That has nothing to do with free speech, because the negation of free speech is that you weren't able to say what you wanted to begin with.

Think long and hard about it before responding something dumb. It's not difficult to grasp.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:53:14 2015 No.5968394 File: 1.89 MB, 236x224, 1412548626233.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5968306 That's not nice

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:53:20 2015 No.5968395

>>5968377

Racism and discrimination can be disguised in the form of religious hatred, just like with anti-semitism.

Houellebecq explicitly states that it's not a problem of religion but of a war of civilizations, this is what makes him a clear racist, rather than a xenophobic autist like Sam Harris.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:53:41 2015 No.5968396 File: 31 KB, 320x259, mongman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5968386 This is what you consider "logic"? The terrifying thing is that people like you might actually be operating dangerous machinery when you grow up.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:55:25 2015 No.5968398

>>5968395
>Racism and discrimination can be disguised in the form of religious hatred, just like with anti-semitism.
There is both a Jewish religion and a Jewish ethnicity. There is an Islamic religion and no Islamic ethnicity.

>Houellebecq explicitly states that it's not a problem of religion but of a war of civilizations
A civilisation isn't a race either. Racism isn't a catch all term for discriminatory opinions.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:55:47 2015 No.5968400

>>5968392
>Think long and hard about it before responding something dumb.

The irony here is that you actually think you're making sense, while all you're posting is pure derp that you've probably picked up from the Guardian CiF pages.

Repercussions have nothing to do with free speech. I can say what I want, if there are criminal repercussions they will be dealt with in law - there is no logic to repressing free speech to prevent harm to the speaker, the only logic behind restrictions to expression are to silence the speaker, which is morally wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:56:22 2015 No.5968401 >>5968396 A pragmatist is going to operate along those lines when they value security. It doesn't make sense to add an element of risk if you can help it. The consequences are key here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:56:32 2015 No.5968402 >>5968396 How is it sensible to engage in an endeavour where you will probably lose something and will certainly gain nothing?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:57:10 2015 No.5968406 >>5966435 Holy fucking shit. I wanna suck Houllebecq's dick.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:58:05 2015 No.5968410
File: 99 KB, 500x400, tumblr_nhtjxwjS6w1qap9gno1_500-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5968316
>Yes. Unfortunately, all opinions are worth defending or none are.
The liberal concept of free speech is based on the ridiculous idea that speech exists separately from action and social structures. The atrocities of the nazi regime together with all crimes of racism and totalitarianism were the product of long standing power structures. Speech is not neutral, it plays a crucial role in creating and sustaining these structures. White liberal 'humanists' are incapable of understanding the realities of colonialism and institutionalized racism. Charlie Hebdo and Houllenbecq are contributing to the same discourse that leads to violence agains muslims and people of color, the same discourse that allows immigrants to be thrown into ghettos and gives the police licence to shoot them without consequence. This is the discourse of colonialism and orientalism.

I think whatever happened was regrettable, but they should have known what they were getting into. When you publish material that contributes to a climate of violence and spits in the face of already marginalized folks you can't expect them to just shut up and take it.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:58:28 2015 No.5968411

>>5968398

Almost all Muslims in France and Europe in general are Arabs. This is not hard to understand, more than half of them are either refugees or immigrants from the war-torn regions of the Middle-East.

Anti-Immigration attitudes are focused on Arabs.

And yes being against Arab "civilization" is connecting an ethnic attribute with a cultural one, i.e. racism.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:58:57 2015 No.5968412
File: 49 KB, 425x390, demograp_pew2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5968372

Not going to remain at 7(lol)% forever though. The facts are that up till now there has been a failure of a great deal European Muslims to secularise

Newer generations are more radical than the previous ones- due to a whole host of issues.

Birth-rates vary greatly between Muslims and non-Muslims

Due to the diminishment of Christianity as wellas the ideal of Nationhood and Patriotism, Islam is becoming more attractive to 'natives' as well as immigrants

Even conservative forecasts would only show the percentage of Muslims in France going one way- you'd have to be wilfully naive not to acknowledge that the political landscape will subsequently change

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:58:59 2015 No.5968413 >>5968400 >Repercussions have nothing to do with free speech. Precisely what I said. You need to re-read my post. Oh, and, think long and hard about it before responding something dumb.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:59:04 2015 No.5968414 What exactly is it about Islam that breeds such violence? You've got ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram etc. and all these lone wolf terrorists. Are people finally realising Islam is fundamentally a problem and a threat like Nazism?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 12:59:08 2015 No.5968415

>>5968402

I like climbing mountains and scuba diving and white water rafting/kayaking. Possible benefit - zero, possible chance of death or injury - some.

Basing life on a series of risk assessments and imagined utility is not logic.

What's the benefit to society of free speech? THE BENEFIT IS THAT YOU ARE A SOCIETY THAT HAS FREE SPEECH AND NOT THE KIND OF DESPOTIC HELLHOLE THAT EUROPEANS USED TO LAUGH AT.

There's a famous quote about giving up liberty for security and I can't be arsed to look it up - some yank or other.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:00:17 2015 No.5968420 >>5968388 >facts be raycis

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:01:06 2015 No.5968423 >>5968415 >I like climbing mountains and scuba diving and white water rafting/kayaking. Possible benefit - zero Incorrect

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:01:22 2015 No.5968424
File: 61 KB, 300x429, JudgeDeathIrving.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5968386
Put as many red snakes as you like in my garden, I'll happily try to identify them and capture the dangerous ones without killing them, while letting the rest slither free, assuming they don't constitute an invasive species and you haven't committed any crimes to bring them there. Now, the thing is that the dangerous red snake here would be a Muslim who is armed and who it can be shown intends to commit violent crimes against others, in which case he will be treated in accordance to the law. Removing all of them? No, that's retarded, because you'd need to remove everyone withing a "group" if anyone within their "group" might be dangerous. There isn't a single person who doesn't somehow fall within one group or more that contains "dangerous" elements. In short, we need to kill everyone.
You are pic related ideologically.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:02:12 2015 No.5968430

>>5968410
You are full of shit, do you know it? Free speech is one of the key tenets of Western civilization, that is, a human right. You can post your bullshit in 4chan and read all your books thanks to it.
>Free speech contributes to generate violence.
Just look at this faggot, /lit/. Just look at him.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:02:25 2015 No.5968432

>>5968412

>Due to the diminishment of Christianity as wellas the ideal of Nationhood and Patriotism, Islam is becoming more attractive to 'natives' as well as immigrants

Only a /pol/tier conspiracy retard would believe that this is in any way viable, in massively secular Europe that is becoming more and more atheist or agnoistic.

>Even conservative forecasts would only show the percentage of Muslims in France going one way- you'd have to be wilfully naive not to acknowledge that the political landscape will subsequently change

The only way the political climate is changing in Europe is that it's becoming more fascist and xenophobic with more Neo-Nazies entering European parliaments.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:02:37 2015 No.5968433

>>5968410
>I think whatever happened was regrettable, but they should have known what they were getting into. When you publish material that contributes to a climate of violence and spits in the face of already marginalized folks you can't expect them to just shut up and take it.

I think you're misreading my posts - I haven't said that people should be magically protected from the consequences of their words, and I'm not even sure how that would happen anyway.

I'm saying that everyone has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, in any medium, without fear of persecution or prosecution under the law.

When the UK starts fining people for burning poppies on remembrance day, then frankly I don't recognise the place, and I've no idea what kind of "freedoms" we're supposed to be defending by removing freedom.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:02:44 2015 No.5968434

>>5968415
>I like climbing mountains and scuba diving and white water rafting/kayaking.
>Possible benefit - zero,

No, the benefit is the pleasure you gain, silly. However, Muslim immigrants aren't pleasant at all.

>Basing life on a series of risk assessments and imagined utility is not logic.
Logic can be successfully used to a assess the right course based on pre-defined objectives though, like establishing security, especially when you gain nothing by not doing so.

>What's the benefit to society of free speech? THE BENEFIT IS THAT YOU ARE A SOCIETY THAT HAS FREE SPEECH AND NOT THE KIND OF DESPOTIC HELLHOLE THAT EUROPEANS USED TO LAUGH AT.
I agree.

>There's a famous quote about giving up liberty for security and I can't be arsed to look it up - some yank or other.
Allowing Muslims into your country decreases both liberty and security. It's a bad deal all around.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:03:35 2015 No.5968438 >>5968402 A fucking Utilitarian? I should've known.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:03:42 2015 No.5968439 File: 5 KB, 224x225, Laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw deluded "moderate" Muslims say "NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE LIKE THAT!" when their bible encourages it

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:04:02 2015 No.5968440 >>5968434 >No, the benefit is the pleasure you gain, silly. However, Muslim immigrants aren't pleasant at all. What a stupid thing to say. In a thread filled with stupidity, that actually stood out. Well done!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:04:14 2015 No.5968441 >>5968373 the right to free speech doesn't mean people don't have the right to get upset at what people say lmao

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:04:18 2015 No.5968442

>>5968410
>When you publish material that contributes to a climate of violence and spits in the face of already marginalized folks you can't expect them to just shut up and take it.
Yeah you can though. Do you think kids who shoot up schools are justified in their actions?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:05:11 2015 No.5968446

>>5968414

What nobody in the godforsaken thread understands is that the muslims do not have the secular / religious split that christ is interpreted to have advocated in Mark 12:17

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Islam on the other hand demands a system of governance requiring divine mandate. Sharia is the a large part of this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:05:14 2015 No.5968447 >>5968441 So you're saying exactly the same as I am. Nice one, chump.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:05:24 2015 No.5968448 >>5968441 Yeah and being upset doesn't give you the right to arrest or murder those whose words offended you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:06:53 2015 No.5968453 File: 43 KB, 600x450, 1410115958766.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5968440 >If I don't agree with you I have the right to kill you and your entire family allahu akbar rofl

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:07:00 2015 No.5968454 >>5968447 >My point is that ... neither side has the right to get upset try again

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:07:10 2015 No.5968455 >>5968446 Yeah so that's why Indonesia and Turkey have secular law? Idiot.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:07:37 2015 No.5968457

>>5968411
Most Muslims in Germany are Turks and most Muslims in Britain are Paki/Indian/Bangladeshi.

A lot of Muslims in France are North-African indeed (and a good amount of them Berber, not Arab_, but there's also plenty of Sub-Saharan muslims, as well as Asian Muslims and some converts.

Saying that it is all about Arabs is a badly informed simplification. Racism is a very specific thing: Discrimination based on race. Not culture, not religion, not opinion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:08:02 2015 No.5968459 >>5968448 No one said it did.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:08:07 2015 No.5968460

>>5968439
They are moderate until they start becoming the majority. Enjoy your fatwas issued from Nôtre-Dame grand mosque and Westminster. This is the price you will pay for not wanting to fuck, and letting your governments import people who actually reproduce and come from totally different cultures from yours.
>b-b-but muh pacific coexistence
In an ideal world, you don't have journalists killed for expressing their points of view. Oh, wait...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:08:11 2015 No.5968461 >>5968448 ok? i'm not saying that

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:08:42 2015 No.5968462 >>5968424 The poisonous snakes are indistinguishable from the harmless ones until they bite. Also, even the harmless ones take up a space and resources while contributing nothing.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:08:43 2015 No.5968463

>>5968433
>I'm saying that everyone has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, in any medium, without fear of persecution or prosecution under the law.

Speech is not neutral. It can make people feel unsafe, it can promote violence against the marginalized. Saying that everyone has a right to 'say whatever the fuck they want' is at best naive and at worst a ridiculous display of entitlement and a lack of empathy.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:08:59 2015 No.5968466

>>5968441
Not him but of course people have the right to be upset. They don't have the right to kill people though. In the climate of free intellectual exchange gifted to us by Western philosophical traditions, views that we disagree with or are outright abhorrent can be argued against instead of just silenced and thrown in the gulags and made taboo and even more damaging, and also potentially make a martyr out of people.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:09:08 2015 No.5968468

>>5968386
Bad analogy. It's not about putting red snakes in your garden, it's about removing or not removing the several red snakes already in it. Thus you have to answer the question: "What are the costs and consequences of removing the red snakes, besides not having any more red snakes in your garden ?". Are the red snakes easy to catch/kill ? Will they defend themselves and how ? Will the removal disrupt ecological balance, pave way for a more threatening species to fester ? Won't it leave us exhausted, bankrupt and poisoned, and ultimately worse off that we were with the snakes ? Is it even possible in current circumstances ? Wouldn't it be better to make the poison of the red snake inefficient in some way or another ?
See, not only have you trouble using simple analogy, you have trouble dealing with the reality of the problem you're stating. And that's not even considering the retardedness of your "Muslims collectively sometimes add bad, but never wrong".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:09:19 2015 No.5968469 >>5968455 A brief look at either country will show both have problems with democratic legitimacy and secularity. Their paths were not easy, and they still have a long way to go.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:09:54 2015 No.5968470 >>5968440 Why is that stupid? I simply find Muslims disagreeable in all aspects and they benefit me in no way. That's sufficient reason to dislike someone and dislike is sufficient reason to do away with something when the opportunity arises.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:10:40 2015 No.5968471 >>5968455 >Yeah so that's why Indonesia and Turkey have secular law? They barely do. And Turkey funds and harbors radical Islamists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:10:49 2015 No.5968473 >>5968463 Yet here you are on 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:11:42 2015 No.5968475 >>5968468 What's this sophistic bullshit? You just elaborated on a flawed analogy.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:11:54 2015 No.5968476

>>5968462
There's no such thing as indistinguishable species. But let's say the non-venomous snakes have had their capacity to produce poison removed. Okay, let's capture all of them and find out, it's really quite simple. This is akin to searching the house of a suspect, and is something that many law enforcement agencies practice on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:11:54 2015 No.5968477 >>5968453 That's the exact opposite of what I said. I genuinely can't work out if you're trolling or utterly fucking stupid. Either way, I'm prepared to kill you over it if you don't shut the fuck up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:11:57 2015 No.5968478 >>5968463 Why are other people's feelings my responsibility?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:12:26 2015 No.5968481 >>5968463 I'm marginalized because I'm autistic, should people being mean to each other be deemed illegal?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:12:56 2015 No.5968483 >>5968463 >Saying that everyone has a right to 'say whatever the fuck they want' is at best naive and at worst a ridiculous display of entitlement and a lack of empathy. I perceive a confused neo-reactionary's speech.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:12:57 2015 No.5968484

>>5968457

There are variations to each countries racism, each however is disguised in the larger ideology of Islamophobia. The fact that because most immigrants in Europe are Muslim and because they constitute the largest religious minority, it is no coincidence how they will not hate individual ethnicities but everyone who is a foreigner.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:13:06 2015 No.5968485 File: 457 KB, 600x450, Costanza up to bat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5968477 Aloha Akbar lmao

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:13:15 2015 No.5968486 File: 457 KB, 1200x795, engerland_master_race.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5968460 EDL please leave.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:13:34 2015 No.5968487

>>5968432

>Only a /pol/tier conspiracy retard would believe that this is in any way viable, in massively secular Europe that is becoming more and more atheist or agnoistic.

And might that fact not possibly push people to Islam? Fifty years ago to say that you were a Catholic Frenchman gave you a clear identity and perspective on the world. Far more than saying- I am an atheist that just so happens to be living in a post-Nationalist, multi-cultural Europe.

The idea of making being identity-less its' own identity is bizarre. It creates a vacuum that Islam can fill

Even if you'r right and no native French people see any appeal in Islam the point remains that Islam is growing at an ever-increasing rate

>The only way the political climate is changing in Europe is that it's becoming more fascist and xenophobic with more Neo-Nazies entering European parliaments.

And why might this be? Could it not possibly be a reaction against the behaviour of a sizeable portion of Muslims in Europe?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:13:34 2015 No.5968488 >>5968468 All valid points. My personal conclusion would be that ultimately the careful removal of snakes would still be a good idea though. But the first thing I would do is stop adding new snakes to the garden immediately.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:14:35 2015 No.5968492 >>5968476 You mostly find out after they have bitten someone though. Not worth the risk, better to remove all snakes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:14:52 2015 No.5968494 >>5968460 I'm note even European.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:15:48 2015 No.5968498 >>5968463 Free expression is more valuable than safety. It's perverse how averse Westerners are to adversity these days. Truly a weak, decadent people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:15:54 2015 No.5968499 >>5968492 Then you get swarmed by rats and realise the snakes were actually pretty handy. It's a really shitty analogy in the first place, but >>5968487 has a more useful take on it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:16:04 2015 No.5968501 >>5968460 > Acts of three muslims can be considered to be representative of over million French muslims k White Americans kill more people annually in school shootings yearly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:16:05 2015 No.5968502 >>5968484 If it were racially motivated the Eastern European Catholic and Orthofox immigrants would get as much shit thrown at them as the Muslims. This is not the case.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:17:12 2015 No.5968508 >>5968499 Which threat is kept at bay by Muslim immigrants?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:17:32 2015 No.5968511

>>5968501

Yeah, but to be fair, all americans are fat, gun-obsessed lunatics who'll kick off at the drop of a hat and shoot everyone at school/the beach/the post office.

It's totally possible to judge hundreds of millions of people based on what a tiny number of them do that makes the news.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:18:01 2015 No.5968515 >>5968508 Tha JOOS.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:19:22 2015 No.5968522

>>5968487

Not everyone needs religion in order to live you idiot. People can have secular values. Just because you are a christfag doesn't mean that other people can't identify with western values such as democracy irrespectively of their ethnicity/background (which btw most of them have nothing to do with Christianity.)

>And why might this be? Could it not possibly be a reaction against the behaviour of a sizeable portion of Muslims in Europe?

To this blind and stupid remark that it's Muslims attacking our "western way of life" I only have to remind you who is intervening in the Middle-East currently and who made all those wars.

Pro-tip:

It's both the Anglosphere and Europe

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:19:34 2015 No.5968523 >>5968508 Trans people, homos

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:20:07 2015 No.5968527 >>5968492 Worth the risk, better to capture them and find out. Then again, snakes have a lot of limitations as analogies, since an ecosystem isn't similar to civilization. They're usually not used in systems of logic for that reason.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:20:08 2015 No.5968528

>>5968498
>Free expression is more valuable than safety
Says the middle class, presumably straight white dude who has never felt unsafe in his life. Do you know how hard is it to live every day knowing everything is stacked against you? Knowing that someone could murder you and literally suffer no consequence?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:20:49 2015 No.5968531 File: 15 KB, 225x225, 1410611613938.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw you're a socialist darwinist so you're fine with whoever wins this ideological struggle and just enjoy the show

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:20:55 2015 No.5968532

>>5968462
You forgot a few key points:

1) The red snakes are hard to distinguish from humans
2) The red snakes make up about 7% of the "humans and red snakes" population
3) You live in a democracy garden shared by dozen millions of people, so any large scale decision requires voting and concertation
4)Humans can turn into red snakes
5) Red snakes can turn into humans
6) Red snakes can marry humans
7) Red snakes can have children with humans
How does that look now ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:21:05 2015 No.5968533 >>5968502 That's because they are white. But you are wrong even on that part. The yellow press in the U.K. constantly attacks Baltic, Polish and Russian immigrants.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:21:08 2015 No.5968534 >>5968508 The French.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:22:09 2015 No.5968541 >>5968528 Knowing that the government could legally punish you for saying you don't like living in such a shitty environment?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:22:14 2015 No.5968543 >>5968533 >That's because they are white. White is a race now? Are you American?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:23:24 2015 No.5968548 >>5968532 >How does that look now ? Like absolute word-salad garbage. I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say you stupid fucking cunt. I think you're mentally ill.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:23:32 2015 No.5968550 >>5968532 Everything I knew about biology is wrong, so I feel dumb.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:24:11 2015 No.5968552 >>5968528 >Do you know how hard is it to live every day knowing everything is stacked against you? The life of a robot tbh :/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:24:53 2015 No.5968555 >>5968543 Colonization happened because the colonized were not white, yes such a thing as a "white race" exists in people minds even today.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:25:17 2015 No.5968559 >>5968548 i disagreed with you before but this post has convinced me you are right

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:25:29 2015 No.5968561 >>5968511 .. Are you implying that there is a massive amount of unreported muslims terror in France?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:27:21 2015 No.5968572 >>5968555 Colonisation happened because the locals got BTFO and knew that our ways were better and developed inferiority complexes about their cultures.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:27:46 2015 No.5968574 >>5968561 wut

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:28:02 2015 No.5968576 >>5968561 There are areas in the French ghettos where the police are literally banned from entering.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:28:26 2015 No.5968580 >>5968572 yep that's what all the history books say. can confirm

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:32:17 2015 No.5968589 >>5968580 >history books >His Story Look again sheeple Ever heard the term cultural cringe btw?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:32:36 2015 No.5968593

>>5968532
Any time anyone shows red snake tendencies you lock them up just to make sure. Some of them may not actually be red snakes but it's a sacrifice you have to make.

Most red snakes are obvious though, so it's easily solved in case of the majority of them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:33:56 2015 No.5968599 >>5968555 Colonisation happened because it was profitable. If you really think Latin and Germanic Europeans feel like they're the same race as Slavs you're mistaken.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:34:32 2015 No.5968602

>>5968483
>>5968478

>I perceive a confused neo-reactionary's speech.

Thats right. and you are a transgressive revolutionary for posting edgy jokes on 4chan. There is nothing more subversive than standing up for empathy and against institutionalized power. Houllenbecq and 4chan are simply exaggerated reflections of mainstream society with its constant racism and sexism.Around this parts, you are more likely to offend people by being 'politically correct' than by being 'politically incorrect'. This goes to show which option is truly the most subversive one.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:34:43 2015 No.5968603

>>5968475
I corrected a bad analogy then elaborated on the corrected version it, all in the purpose of showing how flawed the initial analogy was. Where's the sophism in that ? Please use arguments this time.

>>5968470
So you advocate murder of Muslims because you don't like them ?

>>5968473
One of the point of 4chan is that it's a space where speech is mostly unconsequential. As much as internet pseudo-journalists like to include us in their articles, what we say here is irrelevant to most.

>>5968488
>My personal conclusion would be that ultimately the careful removal of snakes would still be a good idea though.

Well, if you examined all the issues I brought up and came up with a case that can convince European parliaments and governments, go ahead. My analogy was still a simplification, but I doubt even that simplified problem can be solved so easily.

>>5968498
That's not true and the thinkers who crafted our idea of what "Western Civilization" should be would disagree.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:34:56 2015 No.5968604 >>5968561 There certainly is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:36:05 2015 No.5968612 >>5968576 And those are terror how exactly? Also its not that police is banned from entering, its a condition police enforces due to perceived risks. >>5968574 > based on what a tiny number of them do that makes the news.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:36:14 2015 No.5968613 >>5968603 >So you advocate murder of Muslims because you don't like them ? Why not? That's ultimately what all value judgements and the decisions based on them boil down to. Like and dislike. Justifications are just an after-thought.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:37:30 2015 No.5968618 >>5968602 >wanting to be subversive for the sake of it KEK E K

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:37:39 2015 No.5968620 >>5968613 That's 100% incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:37:54 2015 No.5968621 >>5966689 >and like, free speech, yo"? God, I hate when fuckers do this in literature and philosophy classes. Tumblr girls giving memed out synopses, etc.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:38:22 2015 No.5968623

>>5968522

1.Many people feel the need for a sense of identity and of self-hood.
2. The identities many Europeans had 50 years ago have been eroded
3. Islam can provide an identity, sense of self and sense of purpose
C Some Europeans will be drawn to Islam (indeed it is already happening. In France, an estimated 70,000 French citizens have converted to Islam in recent years)

Which part of this do you disagree with? Its' not even a normative point- many will believe that it is a good thing.

>To this blind and stupid remark that it's Muslims attacking our "western way of life" I only have to remind you who is intervening in the Middle-East currently and who made all those wars. Pro-tip: It's both the Anglosphere and Europe

France did not participate in the Iraq war neverthelss I, and many others, feel our actions in Syria, Libya and Afghanistan were catastrophically stupid and wrong. Was any of this mentioned by the shooters though? Why shoot a cartoonist because of a war that they themselves probably opposed? Don't kid yourself- it was an attack on free speech and to an extent, yes, on the western way of life. France has a tradition of mocking religion going back to Voltaire.

When the FN's vote goes up 10% what will that be down to? Did the French get 10% more racist overnight? Or did they see what happened in Paris and perhaps let the sight of a man shouting Allahu Ackbar whilst slaughtering innocents because his God got insulted colour their perception of Islam

Frightfully bigoted of them of course

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:39:37 2015 No.5968628 >>5968620 >meta-ethical stances can be factually correct or incorrect Kek.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:41:24 2015 No.5968637 >>5968522 > which btw most of them have nothing to do with Christianity kek e k humanist, protestant work ethic, capitalism and nihilism are all christian ideas

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:41:25 2015 No.5968638 >>5968508 Free speech.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:42:52 2015 No.5968645 File: 27 KB, 530x416, Screen shot 2015-01-08 at 18.41.49.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Quite glorious tbh

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:42:56 2015 No.5968646

>>5968623
>1.Many people feel the need for a sense of identity and of self-hood.
>2. The identities many Europeans had 50 years ago have been eroded
>3. Islam can provide an identity, sense of self and sense of purpose
>C Some Europeans will be drawn to Islam (indeed it is already happening. In France, an estimated 70,000 French citizens have converted to Islam in recent years)

What's interesting about this is that our own Western religion is probably not capable of providing a sense of identity and self-hood like Islam any more, so the only alternative is to remain void-dwelling or embrace some sort of strong secular ideology instead, so pretty much the rebirth of fascism.

Interesting times ahead.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:43:05 2015 No.5968647

>>5968548
>I think you're mentally ill.

Well, it's no suprise because your last post betrays an inability to deal with comparisons, so at best you're stupid.

>>5968576
Those are results of angry poorfaggotry.

>>5968593
What about the green (ecologist militants), purple (communists), blue (royalists), black (anarchists) and yellows (regional independantists) snakes ? They can be dangerous too, there have been poisonous snakes in each category. And what about the people that turn into snakes ?

Are you going to lock them all up "preemptively" ?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:43:16 2015 No.5968648

>>5968603
>I corrected a bad analogy then elaborated on the corrected version it, all in the purpose of showing how flawed the initial analogy was. Where's the sophism in that ? Please use arguments this time.
Crafty motherfucker. The Muslim problem isn't as simple as snakes and that. If you were so smart, you would see beyond that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:43:53 2015 No.5968655 >>5968645 That's the FN page btw

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:43:57 2015 No.5968656 >>5968645 talking about what?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:44:09 2015 No.5968658 >>5968637 LOL>>5968522, read Nietzsche, read John Gray, read Comte Hell just read anything

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:45:08 2015 No.5968662 >>5968602 >Neo-reactionaries >not the edgiest Silicon Valley shit It would be more subversive if you put a bullet in your head. Just saying.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:45:20 2015 No.5968663

>>5968628
They can be more or less logically consistent. But if you're just arguing for the right of everyone to do exactly what they want then okay, I wasn't trying to refusing that by saying it's 100% incorrect. A simple misunderstanding. I'll fucking kill you over it, though.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:45:24 2015 No.5968664

>>5968647
>What about the green (ecologist militants), purple (communists), blue (royalists), black (anarchists) and yellows (regional independantists) snakes ? They can be dangerous too, there have been poisonous snakes in each category. And what about the people that turn into snakes ?
>Are you going to lock them all up "preemptively" ?
No, I don't really mind those snakes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:47:05 2015 No.5968668 >>5968664 secular snakes are okay because you can reason with them

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:48:19 2015 No.5968673

>>5968613
>Why not?

Because, unlike you're a five years old child, there are other ways to deal with dislike than extermination of the cause of dislike. Your simplification ("all decisions boils down to it") apply here only if you live in a world where there is nothing else than your dislike of Muslims. In the real world there is a huge system of like and dislike (including that petty thing called "society") that you have to take into account.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:49:17 2015 No.5968681 >>5968646 That is the point i was making- there is a demographic, but also ideological shift towards Islam in Europe Islam as the negation of the negation to put it in Hegelese

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:50:26 2015 No.5968685

>>5968664
And why should you be the only authority on which snakes are okay ? I'm not asking wether you would remove all Muslim if you turned into an omnipotent being overnight, I'm asking in what kind of society do you think we live so that removing or "preemptively containing" all Muslims appear like a good decision.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:50:33 2015 No.5968686

>>5968663
>They can be more or less logically consistent.
Mine is, I believe.

>But if you're just arguing for the right of everyone to do exactly what they want then okay, I wasn't trying to refusing that by saying it's 100% incorrect. A simple misunderstanding.
I'd rather remove 'right' from the equation altogether and just realise people have likes and dislikes and tend to act on those likes and dislikes based on how strongly they feel about them after weighing them against their other likes and dislikes.

I, for example, would welcome the murder of Muslims but wouldn't engage in it as some sort of vigilante because I like my own comfort and safety more than I dislike Muslims. But I have no general objection to all of them being removed from the face of the earth. It would be one less nuisance.

>I'll fucking kill you over it, though.
Kek, you must dislike people who disagree with you very strongly if you're willing to sacrifice so much to destroy them. Are you Muslim?

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 13:55:24 2015 No.5968714

>>5968685
>And why should you be the only authority on which snakes are okay ?
Well, I should be the only authority because I value my opinion above all others of course, but I find it understandable if people disagree.

>I'm not asking wether you would remove all Muslim if you turned into an omnipotent being overnight, I'm asking in what kind of society do you think we live so that removing or "preemptively containing" all Muslims appear like a good decision.
That is a more delicate question and of course such a thing won't happen overnight, but for now we're well on the way with increasing tension and animosity and dividing society. Once people get more divided and lose touch with the opposite group they start to dehumanize them and become more and more willing to deal with them like one would with pests or other bothers. Radical Muslims already view the West like this, the West has to catch up in dehumanizing the opponent.

As it is now, removing all Muslims would be a bad idea, but you can make careful steps in the right direction.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 14:00:23 2015 No.5968737

>>5968673
>Because, unlike you're a five years old child, there are other ways to deal with dislike than extermination of the cause of dislike.
Extermination ultimately is by far the most efficient though.

>Your simplification ("all decisions boils down to it") apply here only if you live in a world where there is nothing else than your dislike of Muslims. In the real world there is a huge system of like and dislike (including that petty thing called "society") that you have to take into account.
Of course there are other factors and obstacles and the situation in itself is very complex. It would be dumb to just start cleansing or deporting or something.

But you (or at least that poster) if I advocate murder of Muslims and I do in the sense that I think a world without Muslims would be a far more agreeable place to live in.

This is not really as radical and passionate as it seems and I generally don't really care enough about the subject to get heated about it or act on it, but if the decision were mine, yes, Muslims would lose their existence privileges.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 14:04:18 2015 No.5968753 >>5968737 >Extermination ultimately is by far the most efficient though. Not really, the consequences and execution tend to be all but fulfilling.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 14:04:26 2015 No.5968755

I have free speech. I can say anything I like. It's a human right...

Unless I declare that I'm going to kill someone, that's conspiracy to commit murder.
Unless I swear loudly in a public place, that's civil disturbance
Unless I call a minority group a bad word, that's a hate crime
Unless I say I want others to agree with my racist bigoted opinions, that's inciting hatred
Unless my words are "perceived to be intimidating towards a religious member for wanting to attending a certain school" that's against the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Unless I tell someone to get away from me or to leave a public place, that's depriving them of the federally protected right to patronize a public place.
Unless I... wait, it's not really free speech at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 14:10:54 2015 No.5968775 >>5966689 This is the most British thing I've ever read.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 14:36:16 2015 No.5968876 >>5968576 No there aren't. But there are areas where thy only go in force. >implying there aren't parts of US cities where the cops daren't go without a tank.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 14:37:48 2015 No.5968883 >>5968603 >what we say here is irrelevant to most. If I'm honest, what I say here is largely irrelevant even to me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 14:38:48 2015 No.5968887 File: 15 KB, 385x335, jokes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5968612 >> based on what a tiny number of them do that makes the news.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 14:40:27 2015 No.5968896 >>5968647 >Well, it's no suprise because your last post betrays an inability to deal with comparisons, so at best you're stupid. It's not my problem you can't string a sentence together. Is your first language khazak or something?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 14:43:51 2015 No.5968915 >>5968714 >I value my opinion above all others > of course Fucking hell. You must be 13. >my opinion matters most because it's mine This is exactly the same kind of uneducated "logic" that makes Jenny McCarthy an expert on vaccination.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 15:28:45 2015 No.5969170 >>5968602 The "subversive" views you speak of are the views of the majority.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 15:46:33 2015 No.5969238

>>5968410
The thing about totalitarianism is that it can exist because there is no free speech. Please find me one totalitarian state where people are free to criticize the government.

Free speech is what tears down dictatorships.
Being able to say "fuck you!" to political ideologies/religions/people etc. is good.
And yes, I know that if you walk up to a random on the street and tell them "Fuck you!" you might risk getting punched, but that's because people believe in spooks.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 15:51:09 2015 No.5969266 >>5968440 Do you say that because you enjoy kebab (as in the food, not the meme), have several muslim friends, never encounter muslims and thus speak ideologically, or generally enjoy the presence of muslims?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 15:53:07 2015 No.5969283 >>5967053 Oh i'm laffin. /lit/ really is the stupidest board on 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 15:55:01 2015 No.5969294 >>5968508 Boring, bland food I jest

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 16:12:37 2015 No.5969382

>>5969266
>Do you say that because you enjoy kebab (as in the food, not the meme),

yeah, who doesn't like kebab?

> have several muslim friends,

Yup. Cat Stevens used to come round my mate Imran's house when I was a kid, true story. Now I live in a city with loads of Indonesians and I go to a silat class where nearly everyone's indo. I was also posted to Dar-es-salaam and Arusha for a while with my job and so I've lived in muslim Africa, but not for ages and ages.

>never encounter muslims and thus speak ideologically,

I've no ideology regarding muslims - some of them are alright, some are proper fucking cunts, and most are somewhere in between. Having a religion doesn't make you a freaky space alien. Except if you're amish - those guys are weird.

> or generally enjoy the presence of muslims?
I like indonesian, turkish and north african food. They have interesting street fairs in the summer that I enjoy, and I've known a few pretty cool muslims. On the whole, I'd say I enjoy their company about as much as any other human beings.

any more questions?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 16:48:11 2015 No.5969516 File: 44 KB, 350x263, heh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >I've no ideology

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 17:04:04 2015 No.5969608 File: 10 KB, 250x174, slovoddie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5969516

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 17:24:54 2015 No.5969732 >>5968915 >not being a liberal egalitarian is immature

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 17:27:23 2015 No.5969739 >>5969382 I have a question: Why do you think disliking Muslims is stupid? It's just a preference.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 17:49:02 2015 No.5969846

>>5969739

I think it's stupid to make blanket statements like "muslim immigrants are unpleasant". It demonstrates a limited world view and a kind of laziness.

"muslim" is not a species. It's ridiculous to judge or hate people because of the religion they follow. It's generally a product of lazy thinking that's validated by a limited group of people all agreeing with each other, whether that's a bunch of hicks in a bar or a bunch of hicks on 4chan.

People are people - mostly twats regardless of who they are or where they come from, or what god they worship or where they put their winkie for sexytimes.

Or you can stay in your echo chamber with all your bros who are like totally know about muslims right, cos they read it in the stormer.

Makes no difference to me. You're not at all important.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 18:06:55 2015 No.5969961

>>5969846
They adhere to a narrative I dislike, that's enough to find them unpleasant.

I don't require everyone to be like me or agree with me and I generally welcome different perspectives and get along with lots of different people. I just find Islam particularly ugly, in the same way that I just really don't like the taste of broccoli. That has nothing to do with small mindedness.

Saying that you dislike Muslims isn't necessarily xenophobic, it's just a particular dislike for a particular kind of people. You say Muslims are not a species, but obviously they share certain characteristics, otherwise the term "Muslim" wouldn't refer to anything in the first place.

"People are people" is just a trite humanistic platitude that means not much at all.

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 19:28:52 2015 No.5970527

>>5966689

Why do people insist that kidnapping someone and locking in a cage is an appropriate reaction to someone merely saying or shouting something?

Also, I live in the UK and it is not a fucking good thing. The intellectual debates or philosophies you can practice here are so fucking limited due to the fact everyone spurges out if you do or say something that is remotely "mean". And I'm even talking about being racist or anything, I'm talking things like saying giving homeless people money is bad for them or you wish you could opt out of being taxed and treated by the NHS.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 20:02:39 2015 No.5970704 File: 50 KB, 399x326, cctv.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5970527 please show me your television license, sir.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]