I have mixed feelings about Private Eye and Ian Hislop - it can be funny but at times he and it can be quite cruel. I know free speech gives you the right to say or publish certain things - but don't most of us have an inbuilt filter to stop us being offensive? Free speech would allow you to go along the road commenting "fatty, ***got, big nose etc etc" as we passed people but I have yet to see anyone do it (trouble is putting that in writing makes me laugh and I might find it funny if someone did just that). Last week I watched a programme called the Last Leg - which strangely I have never found before - it poked fun at many but kept its humour "nice" - one of the presenters Adams Hills I think his name was said he chose not to include a picture of the cartoons depicting Mohammed not for fear of repercussions or anything but simply because he said he did not want to offend millions of people who that would disrespect. Good for him.
Many churches are lovely places, some truly awe inspiring and if something in them never touches your spirit or soul or whatever you call it then that is sad. However I tend to like them best when I am the only person there. We have a beautiful Cathedral in Chichester which is good to visit.
I like Adam Hills - definitely one of the 'nicer' comedians around. Even when he pokes fun at his own disability, he does so in an acceptable way - one that you can actually laugh at without feeling guilty.
I am for all the freedoms and I am fortunate to be not only in a free country and also live in a free country where freedoms have no limits. But I put limits to my freedoms when I'm afraid of hurting someone in his feelings. I also think it teaches nothing by mockery, contempt or laughter that hurts. Charlie Hebdo will continue, fine, I am delighted but I reserve my right not to be necessarily in agreement with him, another of my freedoms. This came from a letter in the French press today, and it just about sums up my feelings.
Other people frequently say things I don't like but I was brought up not to be consciously offensive to others. That's not to say I've never been rude to anyone, nor that I haven't responded to what I've seen as provocation. Fortunately I can choose how I respond to things I find offensive. I do not wish anyone, especially the state, to judge what I can or can't read. Yet even as I write this I know that there are many areas....terrorism, violence, pornography, sexism, racism, controlling ideologies...where I worry about the media impact on impressionable minds. Does 24-hour news coverage, for example, strengthen people's horror of atrocities or inure them to such things?
Me too. I support Charlie's right to publish their cartoons but would respect them more if they considered how offensive their actions are. A simple blank front page in white or black would have gained them more respect from me. People who make money by being offensive to others are simply obnoxious.
That's the point though isn't it? The writers at Charlie Hebdo think that religion is utterly ridiculous and thus worthy of ridicule. It is likely offensive if you 'believe' but then where humour is concerned nobody has the right not to be offended. Less so do they have the right to murder if they have been satirised. It is still humour, unlike the Nazi propaganda cartoons of the 1930's because it is satire (however cruel, sharp, black etc.) rather than an attempt to brainwash people into their way of thinking. One thing is for sure so far as I am concerned: the tragedy in Paris has succeeded in polarising my opinion on religion and got me down from whatever wishy washy fence I was previously sitting on. As I said earlier, I'm done pandering to peoples sensibilities regarding religion. I will hold my counsel so as not to deliberately offend but where I see the halleluyah brigade spouting what I consider to be lies, half-truths and intellectual fallacies, then I will say my piece.
Ten minutes ago, two callers at the door. First woman: Good afternoon. We're calling to ask people whether, in the light of all the amazing new discoveries in the world, they think there must be a Creator of all this. Me: No. Good afternoon.
That's a coincidence - I had a similar visit last weekend. My modus operandi was equally successful - I responded with "You mean amazing things like ebola virus, nuclear weaponry & other tools of mass destruction, religious fanaticism....." It was all I could think of in the short time available, but it worked - they wandered off.
A very slight off topic post, however, to some extent it is related. A good read, especially to those who have also read or seen Gomorrah. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/-sp-roberto-saviano-my-life-under-armed-guard-gomorrah
I am not quite sure what you are saying in some of this. "where humour is concerned nobody has the right not to be offended" I don't follow you on that. The CH writers believe that religion is ridiculous do they? That gives them the right to offend others whose beliefs are equally valid but opposed? So you can legitimately mock gays, Jews, and anybody else if you want to, can you? Not in a decent society I think. Are you saying it is OK to offend anyone you like so long as you are funny - and by whose definition is that humorous? In this case certainly not by Moslems - nor by many others. It may be good for you that you have found this a "polarising" event. It is a shame it took the deaths of so many people to help you come to your decision - not a price I consider worthwhile. You have always been entitled to argue your "side" of any religious debate. Some of my best friends are Jehovah's Witnesses and we have been arguing our respective sides for over 30 years. Religion is a matter of faith and even though scientific logic can debunk many of the "facts" claimed by religious sects it can never prove the existence or non existence of a god. That is down to faith and it is harsh to claim your faith in non-god is more valid than another's faith in god. I too have come to a very firm disbelief in any god in terms of a creator but welcome others with different views. I have always been amused by Piet Hein's Grook:. Who am I. To deny. That, maybe,. God is me?
Not for the first time you don't really appear to have understood me. I'll let Ricky Gervais explain: "I always expect some people to be offended. I know I ruffle feathers but some people’s feathers need a little ruffling. And remember: just because someone is offended doesn’t mean they’re in the right. Some people are offended by multiculturalism, homosexuality, abortion, atheism – what should we do? Ban all those things? You have the right to be offended, and I have the right to offend you. But no one has the right to never be offended. I never actively try to offend though. That’s churlish, pointless and frankly too easy. But I believe you should say what you mean. Be honest. No one should ever be offended by truth. That way you’ll never have to apologise. I hate it when a comedian says, “Sorry for what I said.” You shouldn’t have said it. You shouldn’t say it if you didn’t mean it and you should never regret anything you meant to do. As a comedian I think my job isn’t just to make people laugh but also make them think. As a famous comedian I also want a strict door policy on my club. Not everyone will like what I say or find it funny. And I wouldn’t have it any other way. There are enough comedians who try to please everyone as it is. Good luck to them, but that’s not my game, I’m afraid." As for the polarising you and I have debated long enough and hard enough for us to understand each other if not agree. I have always expressed my opinion but have tiptoed around people's sensibilities but I will not do that anymore. That is all. Frankly it's a decision I was coming to but it has been helped along its way. As to faith, well faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven. It is an intellectually dishonest position to take. And I agree absolutely that one can neither prove or disprove God. Nor for that matter the Dragon that lives in my garage and guides me daily and is my comfort and saviour and moral guide. My non faith in god IS more valid. A religious person makes the positive claim and thus carries the burden of proof. Ditto not guilty until proven otherwise... you can't have it both ways. I am not god and nor would I want to be.
According to a man at the tube station the other night, I need to prepare myself for the second coming of Jesus which is happening any day now. I bought an extra pint of milk in case he fancies a cuppa.
It was not meant to be. I just felt that to say that something so awful had helped Fez come to his decision was a shame - that was all - pity it needed such an awful event.. It may be a spillover from the banal comments Mrs L receives about how her cancer has made people value their lives more - it may be true but she does not need to hear it. You would not believe people could be so insensitive but many have said it. She is so pleased that her cancer has helped them. It almost makes her wish she had it years ago.
I will leave most unquoted to save space. Thanks - I just could not get my head around the double negative but Ricky Gervais explains it more fully. I agree that nobody has the right never to be offended - that would be impossible to achieve anyway. Your example of "should we ban homosexuality etc" is not comparable - someone who is gay just IS gay - it is not a choice thing - you cannot ban it. Humour is a choice though. It needs to take account of its audience. What is right for a late evening show will not be right for times when children are watching. I DO have a right to not expect my grandchildren to be exposed to certain types of humour. There are many examples of times and places where you have a right NOT to be offended. If you choose to go to see a comedian at a club you know what to expect and if something offends you then you chose to go there. A comedian doing the same routine on a street corner would not be acceptable. At what point would you say that a Jew did not have the right to be offended by cartoons of the holocaust? But if those cartoons were contained inside a known fascist magazine I would say anyone who bought it or saw it had themselves to blame for seeing it. I still would not approve of them. It is a very difficult area and in my opinion comes down to how overt the offensive material is. I would not ban Charlie Hebdo as I doubt many Moslems who would be offended would buy it. However do you not see a difference between showing those cartoons on the front cover where it may be hard to avoid and the same material discreetly inside. The same argument applies to sex magazines - do not put them where those who might be offended will be exposed to them. I see nothing wrong with always avoiding deliberate offense - except to those who wish to expose themselves to it. What Ricky Gervais would say in his act is very different to what he would say on for example "The One Show" I cannot make a virtue out of offending people. My answer to people who offend me is to tell them that they have offended me rather than to go tit for tat. There is no excuse for violence or killing however in my book no matter what provocation you may feel you have had.
I think that covers it for me. People have been posting a number of CH cartoons on FB that out of context appear racist, sexist etc..... Great shame... has put off a number of my US friends....
