Free Speech Isn’t

There’s always a price, and in France, thanks to the efforts of the religion of whirled peas and their glittery hoo haa’d social justice warrior enablers a dozen people have paid that price (frankly, worshiping whirled peas would make more sense than that religion – but that’s my personal opinion and others are free to disagree. At least the peas have nutritional value).

It’s up to us – as individuals, as authors, as whoever and whatever we are – to decide where we stand. One the side of whirled peas, anything that isn’t mandatory is forbidden and subject to the death penalty as delivered by its most rabid frothing followers – something the social justice warrior set only wish they could do. This may be why they cheer the whirled peas on, or possibly the social justice whiners checked in their brains for the duration and are thinking with their glittery parts.

On the other – where we oddlings live – is the principle enshrined in the US Constitution’s First Amendment – of free speech and free association as an absolute right. That’s why the US allows openly hateful groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, the Black Panthers, and the KKK to make asses of themselves in public as long as they’re not telling people to go out there and kill whoever their chosen pariah happens to be. Funnily enough, only the ones that the social justice hoo haas believe are too precious to have the ugly truth told about them have any kind of mainstream acceptance. Must be a coincidence… oh damn. I keep forgetting my natural level of sarcasm is illegal in twenty states and breaks things in all the others.

Anyway. The point here is that there’s two ways to deal with groups that insist something must never be done/said/whatever. One is the obvious: give them what they want and they’ll make nice – or at least make somewhat less nasty. The other – and much better – is to give them the metaphorical finger of defiance raised high and talk about whatever they don’t want spoken as often as as loudly as possible. The more people that do it, the less likely it is that the hushers won’t be able to target you specifically.

And that is the price of free speech. It’s the knowledge that not everybody out there is a mature adult who is capable of thinking, “that’s offensive” and even saying as much without feeling the need to go and kill whoever offended them. It’s a price that needs to be paid.

I have some sympathy for those whose culture has turned them into mindless drones for a poisonous ideology, but that sympathy ends when they try to restrict what I may say, think, write, or draw (this although my drawing sucks). I don’t care what religion they follow, be it Islam or Post-modern Feminism or Environmentalism or Communism. I don’t care how much melanin their skin contains. If they wish to silence me they are my enemies, and since the written word is my weapon I will satirize them all the more often and all the more viciously.

Everyone here, as a writer or a reader, needs to do the same. Not because I think you all agree with me – I’d guarantee in this crowd that saying “The sky is blue” would start an argument – but because the community here is one that is capable of sensible, mature-adult-style disagreement where we can say (and mean it), “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Like all things, caving to the hushers will simply embolden them. This time it’s cartoons satirizing their sacred figure. A while back it was historical fact. Next time it could be simply someone who doesn’t worship in a mosque.

Silencing the artists is how that sort create the illusion that their view is unopposed. If we let the hushers succeed, we might have peace, but it’s the peace of slavery or the grave. Me, to quote someone who is much greater than I will ever be: “Give me liberty, or give me death.” Frankly, there are no other options.


130 thoughts on “Free Speech Isn’t

    1. Those who support the perps. Those who say, “Well, killing is wrong, but so is offending people.” Those who say, “The perps are no different from the Tea Party.” (I saw that on Facebook three times yesterday. It’s an Instant Block trigger for me.) Those who haven’t (yet) killed to suppress free speech, but who have used legal and extra-legal means to do so — because that’s just a step down the road to where the perps live.

      1. Yeah, remember all those times Tea Partiers assassinated media figures who insulted them?

        Neither do I.

        1. That is just because the denizens of Bezos’ underground empire are suppressing coverage by terrorizing the media.

          *Bob is dragged screaming out into the night.*

          There are no mole men.

      2. Frankly,anyone who says what they did was okay or justified or equal to another’s speech needs counseling, but they are free to say it.

        1. And Kate is free to rail against them. And I am free to block the assholes who equate peaceful tax protestors with censorious butchers.

          You asked who Kate was railing against. Railing against them is not denying them their freedom of speech, it’s answering their speech with better speech. Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from opposing speech.

          1. Precisely. Words are my primary weapon. (I do have the 9mm and the husband’s .45 as backup, though).

            1. Kate, I love both the 9mm and the .45 ACP, but a Mossberg 500 12 gauge is JUST the thing when you have to kill every SOB in the room right now. Available at around $150 at your local pawn shop. And if you want to poke some nice holes at a distance, the Mosin-Nagant 91/30 in 7.62x54R is available at around the same price. Good quality arms on the cheap. MadMike probably has 20 of them by now; they multiply.
              Just a thought…

            2. I have no doubt, and I was not impugning you. I simply was unaware of the idiocies being spouted out there on the interwebs by people who claimed to think. Having now found them, I’m with you all the way.

        1. Because CHANGE THE SUBJECT CHANGE THE SUBJECT DEFLECT DEFLECT DEFLECT! They have no logic, they’re just pulling a rhetorical trick to try to stop people from discussing the problem.

    2. Note ‘enablers’ in the first sentence.

      By implication, this includes those who cry ‘peaceful, peaceful’, whenever discussion turns to the centers of gravity for these incidents. These can only be considered peaceful, as opposed to warlike, if the victims do not fight back. Making that claim is implicitly a form of history editing.

      Five years from now, those sort will be ‘that was a long time ago’ or ‘Charlie who?’.

    3. I’m ashamed to admit that there are Catholics, including the head of the CADF, who are roughly living out the “first they came for X, and I did nothing, because I am not X” story.

      1. Thanks for the link. I was absolutely unaware that there were idiots out there making these kinds of comments. But I will defend to the death his right to make them.

        1. Oh, nobody’s saying they shouldn’t – hell, I strongly defend the right for us to ‘let them speak their words, so that we may know how they think.’

          This does not mean, however, that we are not allowed to criticize those words and those thoughts and mindsets. We are allowed to be offended by those things as well; and choose to eschew them or choose no longer to associate – but this whitewashing, victim blaming and worse that’s coming from ‘these idiots’ is somewhat worse than simply speaking disagreement. They are often, if not outright, blaming the victims for ‘making themselves targets’ – ignoring that while Muslims (and Jews, and Christians) are allowed to grumble that they’re not happy, or offended – they’re not supposed to, by the standards of our civilization, go forth and murder because they’re offended. Seeking redress in a civilized matter, perhaps, but to take lives simply because of perceived insult and self-proclaimed victimhood isn’t by any means considered civilized in this day and age – and the fact that the violent Islamics consider it to be so is quite telling. Further, it’s quite moronic that there are people who immediately shift to moral equivalency and bring up (even worse!) false equivalents, especially as ‘Tea Party’ groups have not done any murdering (and merely advocating self defense and right to bear arms isn’t the same thing at all!) and it’s usually leftist groups who do the ‘for me, but not for thee’ phrasing of ‘what’s allowed.’

          (Notably, seeking a duel because you’re offended requires that the ‘offending’ party agree to allow you to fight, so it’s not quite the same thing… but duels are outlawed I believe…)

          If anything it is the fact that we in the West are so restrained in our response that is the main reason why these things continue to happen. If you look up the city of Malmo, and another city in Norway with a large Muslim migrant population (of various nationalities) there’s been a 200% increase in rapes and sexual assaults. But the government is reluctant to point to the groups of said perpetuators – because that would be racist. There are stories aplenty over here of new refugees from Islamic states such as Somalia who embark on rape sprees shortly after being allowed into the country, and express puzzlement about the punishment, citing that their religion and culture allows them to treat Western women as sex slaves and toys because they are not equal to Muslim women. One particular shining specimen of Islamic manhood was this Somalian who embarked on a rape spree where he raped a dozen different Australian women – ranging from the age of 11 or 12, to grandmother.

          A study of what is Dar-Al-Islam and what is to be done to Dar-Al-Harb would be quite enlightening, but since that requires acknowledging the totalitarian aspect of Islam (in that it is not just a religion for spiritual growth and advancement, and moral values, but also a socio-political setup and machine whose laws apply to non-Muslims as well) this is generally avoided by most ‘intellectuals’ – and is also difficult for those who try. For all the expression of ‘brotherhood’ with ‘other Children of the Book’ there exists a mandated second class citizenry status that must be maintained by the second class (a servant class, in effect) to pay the followers of Islam jizya – a payment of extortion tax to not be slaughtered and allowed to practice, somewhat, their religion’s tenets and actions.

          …uhm. Sorry for the ramble but the blood pressure regulating meds I took kinda kicked in and I nodded off and lost the train of thought I had. ~_~;;;

          1. Our system recognizes that there is a difference between ‘speech’ and ‘behavior.’ There are some blurred lines, but mostly, the distinction holds. However, following some of the links in this discussion leads me to believe that the terrorists draw NO distinction between speech and behavior, and that Islam never has. So, to them, a word = a cartoon= a fist=a bullet. We reject this as barbaric, and utterly at odds with the rules of civilized society. And now, perhaps, their vile system will be seen for what it is; and those of us who have taken an oath perhaps should prepare accordingly. The First 10 Amendments describe what the government can’t restrict; these are rights accorded to individuals to protect them from the government. In the States, we can legally carry a concealed firearm if we have a permit, and we don’t need a permit if the firearm is in our home or in our vehicle (some states vary) . I interpret my oath to mean that if I see an armed individual trying to kill a journalist, I get to take the shot.

            1. I interpret my oath to mean that if I see an armed individual trying to kill a journalist, I get to take the shot.

              From what I am aware, that is usually the case in matters of self defense over there in the US. From what I am told this is also the case here in Australia.

      2. Ummm…I don’t know. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you are gonna poke a tiger with a stick, you will experience consequences unless you have a long stick and the tiger is restrained somehow. Were the writers and cartoonists under the impression that the Muslims were going to behave with the same restraint that the Catholics did? It’s praiseworthy to taunt an enemy if you are willing to defend your words, but from the comments I’ve read about the magazines’ earlier positions, they were just monkeys throwing doo-doo. This is NOT meant to be an apology for the murdering terrorists; it IS meant to point out that if you make fun of murdering terrorists, you’d be wise to take appropriate precautions.

        1. I’d respond to that with all the respect it deserves, but Sarah’s signature “these are my middle fingers” is hard to do via text.

          I’m not sure if the sheer ignorance is worse than supporting bulling or not, since at this point it has to be willful.

          1. Foxfier, could you please clarify your post? I don’t know what you are referencing, but from the positioning of the post, it looks like it’s something I wrote. In which case, I am even more confused.

            1. In which case, I am even more confused.

              That is the nicest possible reason for your claim that being executed by terrorists is a “consequence” of being rude.

              1. I believe we have some confusion over terminology. I did not claim that “Being rude” was a JUSTIFICATION for their murder. However, their murder was undeniably a consequence of their being rude to murdering terrorists.

                  1. Yep, people have been extremely “rude” to Christians in recent years and while there have been protests, Christian “radicals” haven’t used violence against the “rude” people.

                    1. Including the magazine in question, actually– they have a cover with a condom as the Body of Christ. (Held by Pope B16, back when the media was mangling a rather delicate point about an impulse to prevent harm to others, even when you’re still doing some very grave harm.)

                      No Catholic firebombings from that, or armed Catholic gunmen.

                      Thus proving that it is not a consequence, a thing which follows, but that the choice was made by those who decided to kill in order to silence someone.

                      It is horrible that the ability to more effectively respond was denied so many.

                    2. Thus proving that it is not a consequence, a thing which follows, but that the choice was made by those who decided to kill in order to silence someone.

                      Ought be repeated, and spread far and wide.

                      I think the cautious are confused, perhaps innocently, as illustrated by poking the tiger. Irritate an animal, suffer the consequences of animal instinct.

                      Irritate a reasoning human being, expect the reasoning human being to be responsible for their own response, and accountable to it.

                      Slaughter is never the consequence of cartooning. Or speech.

                  2. Sigh.
                    ‘If you make fun of murdering terrorists, you would be wise to take appropriate precautions.’
                    End quote.

                    1. Has zip to do with the problem, although it does suggest you recognize it enough to try to change the subject. A glass with fecal matter in it is not fixed by pointing that there’s some water, as well.

                    2. I have no idea why you are trying to pick a fight.
                      I never implied that the victims deserved to be killed for their work.
                      I did state clearly that they misunderstood the nature of the people they were making fun of in this case, that they failed to take appropriate precautions.
                      As I said, I don’t know why you are trying to pick a fight, but I am no longer interested in trying to clarify the words that I used.

                    3. I have no idea why you are trying to pick a fight.

                      I am responding to what you said– objecting, even.

                      Golly, aren’t you lucky that I’m not a violent maniac?

                      Not wasting any further time on you.

        2. I’m coming in late here and Foxfier has made her answers already. The satirist were aware of the threat, they had been bombed already. They were under police protection. That’s why there were police killed at the scene. They were not able to protect the paper.

        3. Those people had balls of brass. They knew they were being targeted and continued to mock – and took what precautions French law permitted them to take.

          They paid the price. I rather hope that if I end up paying the price I can take a few of the bastards with me.

          1. Amen and amen. I live in Texas. I work at home, but I do have certain precautions taken. Like … noisy dogs. I’ll blaspheme and offend against Islam as often and as thoroughly as I please.
            And likely in my own small neighborhood, we have enough long guns to supply a small European country. As we found out, when a couple of years ago, when there was a mass murderer haring off on foot in our ‘hood, after having gunned down a local couple in their home. They caught him in the local grocery store parking lot, an hour or two later. Our neighbors began comparing notes in the aftermath …

    4. Like quite a few folks in the thread have said, the social justice warrior types who enable the perps and their murderous form of censorship have at least as much blood on their hands as the bastards who did the deed. Possibly more.

      1. It’s cowardly, and yes, they have just as much if not more blood on their hands, because what they do is ‘oh hey you guys, look here’s a target we both don’t like… we’ll make sure they can’t stop you discreetly because the enemy of my enemy is my friend, amirite? no no, it’s no problem, I’m just pointing out that there’s this group/person/target who has been doing (laundry list of thoughtcrime) and well, if you feel like eliminating them (for me) la la I had nothing to do with that…

        Been on the receiving end of a variation of that theme too many times.

  1. Nicely said!

    ““The sky is blue” would start an argument”
    …no it wouldn’t!

    1. The sky is clear. During the day a scattering of the higher end of the visible EM range give it the appearance of blue. Take away the light–which happens 50% of the time–and you can see all the way to stars.

      Unless it’s cloudy, in which case the sky is white, some shade of gray . . .

      And I have the right to say so.

      1. Actually, today the sky is grayish-white and disgusting. Tonight it will probably be black. Maybe it will be blue tomorrow, but being Michigan in January I doubt it.

      2. I just don’t think we should use the word blue. It’s too closely associated with white privilege. No, really, it is. You can google it. I think we should use the word “Owhatagoosiam” instead.

  2. The French police were unarmed. Three first responders arrived on bicycles, and had to leave because they were without the means to stop the attack.
    No, I am not an impartial observer; I am a member of the NRA, and I have in excess of 10 firearms in my house. Even if I were a SJW, though, I think I would have to consider that the sending of unarmed police against terrorists armed with machine guns is a stupid f*&^ing policy. If there is ANY better demonstration that the First Amendment to the Constitution rests on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I don’t know what it could be. If you remove the guns from the hands of citizens and from the police as well, the lawbreakers will control the press. Now, it hasn’t happened YET in a liberal democracy, but how many journalist have to die before people don’t want to be journalists any more? If ANY law breaker can apply deadly force to those who offend them without fear of being stopped in the act, then the rule of law is no longer operable.
    France, you did it to yourself. Shame!

    1. That’s where I’ve been through this. I can understand standing with Charlie and arguing the importance of preserving unrestricted free speech on a legal level regardless of opposition…

      …but it fails to address that, even if these thugs don’t bludgeon governments to go along with their demands, on a practical level, art carries a death sentence.

      We don’t only need lofty words and solidarity here… we need to consider how this affects us all as artists, and how we respond.

      On a personal level–I’m not sure of the best answer. But acknowledging that our expressions of art could very well have us next on the chopping block is going to be part of it. To know that it’s still vitally important, because self-censorship kills art faster and more completely than anything imposed externally. And to have a plan and preparation for if and when someone does try to kill us.

      On the level you mention–how many journalists get killed before folks decide they don’t want to be journalists anymore… I don’t have even that much of an answer. My kneejerk is Operation Swordfish–swift, disproportionate, overwhelming response, an indication by the government that our laws, not your sensibilities, control here, and you ignore it at your peril. But in addition to it being unlikely… well, policy isn’t my strong suit, and I don’t trust my kneejerks much. So I really have no idea.

      But this is where we need to focus. Because making speech illegal is only one way to silence your enemies–an enemy frightened into submission is just as quiet.

      1. The first thing to do, however, the very first thing is to recognize that this is an effort to silence opposition and it must not be allowed to succeed. Beyond that is beyond that but that is the first thing.

        1. Yes. Fuck cultural sensitivity, fuck “coexist”; this is an attempt to conquer. Failure to acknowledge that–and that Western civilization and ideals are worth a billion of these “noble savages”–is to everyone’s peril.

          1. Hell, yes. This is conquest. We have to fight back by whatever means we have available to us.

            We’re artists – art is our best weapon. The back up weapon collection is our insurance policy, as it were.

      2. On a personal level, if you know you’re likely to be a target and you know the cops can’t/won’t protect you . . . not their job, anyway, in the USA, you take steps to protect yourself. That step over there is the 12 ga and the rounds for it. This one here is locking your front and back doors. There’s the barking dog step. There’s the camera on the gate a mile from your house step. There’s the two hours at the range on Saturday step, the carrying your concealed weapon ALL THE TIME, even to the chicken coop step.

        For artists, cartoonists, journalists, etc, there’s little reason to be in congregated bunches most of the time. If I owned a newspaper office I’d consider sending everyone who possibly could, including the gal who answers the classified ads phone, to work from home. Get people out of the potential target. And then keep working.

        1. I don’t know if it was verified, but supposedly they only had all those people there at the same time because they were having a special meeting.

            1. It would be useful to know if the janitor was killed resisting them, or if his name was called out specifically. If it was called out, he may have been able to identify them, or identify someone who might know them. (Exactly what repair men had been in recently, for example.)

            2. I’d like to know the answer to that myself – how they knew there would be a good many of the regular staff on hand, and that the one woman with a kindergarten-aged child would be going into the building at a certain time. Expert reconnaissance or inside knowledge from one source or another …

    2. “If ANY law breaker can apply deadly force to those who offend them without fear of being stopped in the act, then the rule of law is no longer operable.”

      That has already happened in Mexico, along the border. First the local newspapers and media were murdered and bludgeoned into silence regarding the activities of the narco-traffickers, then bloggers who were ordinary citizens and took up posting – even under an alias for their own safety – were murdered as an object lesson. The latest victim had her twitter account hijacked by her murderers.


      I, and several others, really wish that some of the folks with cellphones had even an old bolt .22 instead.

      That the lady at the desk had a shotgun in the classic assault deterrent style.

      That even one person in the building could have gone down fighting EFFECTIVELY….. (Since the janitor was killed, I’m going to assume someone did resist; a workman needs tools, though.)

    4. And people who don’t know the difference are remarking that they used ‘modern sporting rifles’ and talking about how the NRA keeping guns available here is going to make sure that terrorists can get guns here… and I’m like “HUH?!?!? isn’t it *hard* for normal people to get full auto assault rifles in the socialist paradise of France? Shouldn’t it have been impossible for the poor oppressed little brown peoples to get guns? Doesn’t the fact that they did get them in France tell you that criminals, especially terrorists, are going to get guns whenever they want?”

      But then i remember that they are just scared of the wolves and bleating about the baaaad baaad guns.

  3. I’ve been doing my little bit against these monsters since not long after 9/11, under a different nom de cyber. My response is on my blog.

  4. Oddly this is the power of a Bard. It is why Bards (whatever they were called in their culture and time period) tended to be treated with some wariness. After all you could kill a bard to prevent him from writing a scathing song about you, but the first song was already making the rounds and could not be unwritten nor unheard. This terrifies those who rely on ignorance or monolithic viewpoints. And with the Internet these comics are likely to go viral. Not exactly what they wanted.

    1. That’s why Muhammad executed or sent hit squads after all opposing bards and storytellers and singers, male and female, and said that God hated music and every musician would burn in Hell.

      We tend to assume that even baddies have human decency, but a lot of them don’t.

      1. To be totally fair, most Muslims pick and choose ahadith that permit singing, musical instruments, etc. But the Qur’an explicitly says that any music criticizing Islam or drawing people away from Islam will send you to Hell. (And of course, other verses say that you should kill anyone who does anything even vaguely anti-Islam.)

        But there are also plenty of ahadith that indicate that “all musical instruments should be destroyed, just like all Christian crosses,” “only war drums are allowed,” “only singing is allowed,” or “no music whatsoever is allowed.” That’s why groups like the Taliban and ISIS run around killing and destroying music.

      2. MO-ronic critter had a regular arbitrariness to his ayas and surahs. Including coming up with one that nobody was allowed to annoy or criticize or question the Prophet, when he actively broke one of his own taboos and prescriptions for behavior, and his followers were very confused and just wanted to ask for clarification.

        Seriously, the arbitrariness and random justifications of epic double standards and moving goalposts? Clamps is a freaking amateur in comparison (and the only reason why I mention him is because he’s the most common example I can think of that everyone here knows.)

    2. And being a Bard is something that tends to choose you rather than the other way around. Or at least that’s how it worked for me.

      1. And they don’t realize that nothing spreads a song or idea faster than suppressing it. They don’t understand the power of words, though they see that it is there.

  5. Amen. This is far from over. Hopefully, it will hit home to the majority of people in the West how serious this really is. Hopefully.

    1. Sadly, it won’t hit the people who need to know it most – our self-styled “elites”

  6. “I have some sympathy for those whose culture has turned them into mindless drones for a poisonous ideology”

    That’s nice. I don’t. Whether the poisonous ideology in question is the one adhered to by the murderers, or the one adhered to by the European elite that created the situation in which such horrid crimes are only to be expected, or the nearly-identical one adhered to by any American demonstrably possessing less moral courage than a bunch of French cartoonists, I’ve got no sympathy left at all.

    It’s long past time for us all to stand up and be counted. Either we’re for civilization, or we’re for barbarism.

    I’m for civilization. It’s a shame I can’t draw worth crap.

    1. It’s all three. And sympathy isn’t going to stop me doing everything in my power to stop them, not least because it’s rather important to prevent the spread of those poisonous ideologies.

      1. When you face a rabid dog, the fact that you love him does not stop you from stopping him from being a danger anymore, and from suffering.

        The false compassion of not doing so just makes it likely others will die, and the rabies will spread.

    1. Social Justice: The reordering of society to correct what are perceived to be past social injustices. Which is essentially a somewhat arbitrary category. For example, the science fiction variations include claims that playing with sex and gender in fiction is new, and that women were not allowed to write it before a certain recent date. So they ignore Jack Chalker, Andre Norton and all the others.

      Social Justice Warriors: Persons trying to achieve social justice, framing it as a struggle with battle imagery, but mostly just using bullying, the Leninist organizational weapon, and peer pressure.

      1. In that case Kate’s post doesn’t make any sense. The attack happened in France, possibly the most secular country on the planet.


        1. That is exactly why it happened in France.

          The way the SJWs define things, the real victims here are the murderers and those who support them, because they felt offended.

          1. My point is that Kate was implying that Social Justice Warriors were responsible for the attack, and France has very few people who would match your definition. In other words, Social Justice Warriors are an endangered species in France, so I don’t see how they could have any impact on the attack.


            1. It’s pretty clear you are not understanding, and at this point I don’t care if it’s a lack of ability or a lack of willingness.

            2. Reread Kate’s bit and buy a clue. Reread my definition and buy two!

              Secular defaults to more religious leftists. Religious leftists can easily manifest as social justice warriors. Social Justice Warriors are more about the values they have been raised with than actual social injustice.

              Kate speaks of enablers. The greater influence of SJW in France means that they have been more able change things. These changes made the terrorism easier.

            3. Wayne, the Social Justice Warriors rule France in the form of secular leftist elites. They’re the reasons France has no-go areas that are functionally Islamic enclaves, the architects of the ridiculously generous welfare system that allows the residents of those enclaves to live in reasonable comfort without having to lift a finger, and the ones who have disarmed not only the French population, but the French police as well.

              1. France was (I believe) the first country to pass legislation to ban wearing of certain types of religious garb. France has also moved to block a variety of religious ‘practices’ some of which were Islamic. Of course France is an equal opportunity country, some actions also impacted the Catholic church, and other Christian churches.

                In simple terms, France doesn’t care if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they’ll legislate against your practices, if the legislature believes those practices aren’t French enough.

                France is aggressively secular, unlike most countries. There’s no apologies about it either. You have a choice, put up with it, or leave France.

                Which is hardly the situation you describe.

                Now I could see something like what you describe happening in other places. There are several countries I can think of that are willing to abase themselves before the idiots.


                1. Sir,
                  Again, some of the qualities you ascribe to France are compatible with my description of the SJW.

                  You arguments also fail to counter Kate’s. Those laws hardly sound a match for the Foreign Legion in Algeria. Therefore it seems reasonable to count them as an objective decrease.

                2. France’s elites are the same kind of “aggressively secular” as the left everywhere. They’ll legislate against religious practices – but since they don’t enforce it in the Islamic enclaves (because doing so would require the kind of bloodshed the current elites don’t have the stones for), it makes absolutely no difference.

                  All you are doing, sir, is making yourself look like an idiot.

                1. Yes. Derailed what should have been a useful conversation to the OS wars that Kate was actively trying to avoid, because that was just beyond freaking annoying. Also refused outright to listen to anything contradictory to anything he said. Pretends ignorance – or seems to pretend – and is generally a rather frustratingly dense person to try talk to. And I’ve had maybe at best two encounters with the guy.

                  I mean, I can still TALK to Fail Burton elsewhere, about different topics, just to give you an idea.

                  1. Huh, so that’s why I recognized the name…. made my usual mistake that if someone seemed to be totally missing the broad side of a barn and I somewhat recognized them, then talking would do any good.

                    Now I don’t feel so bad about losing my temper.

                    1. Now that it has been pointed out, I think I recall he’d been mentioned in that thread as someone who had done something similar before then.

                    2. Actually I follow Bob Heinlein on this – ‘Make them prove what they say.’

  7. From Twitter:

    “‏@saladinahmed No one wants to hear this right now, but it’s still a hell of a lot more dangerous to be a Muslim in France than it is to be a journalist”

    1. Oh goody. Just what I need: something to raise my blood pressure while I’m in the middle of rewriting a fight scene.
      /sarc (mind the puddle of it down there)

      1. It might be true, if you include “being murdered for other Muslims because you’re not doing what they want” as a reason.

        The slaughtered cop was a Muslim, most likely.

            1. The stories about the policewoman too, when one reads about how proud and happy she was to be able to do something to give back / serve her nation…

              Then I remember the ‘kill cops’ people in the US…

              I… feel more sorrowful than furious, y’know?

    2. *swallowing my initial response*

      He’s right. No one wants to hear it right now, or — ever really.

      So why is he speaking, except in an effort to accrue some victimhood glory for himself.

      Craven pig.

    3. This man is the idiot who identifies as MUSLIM and GAY. I want him to try to be a gay man in a Muslim country. Just try it. Then he’ll know what dangerous is.

      1. I did not know this.

        How deeply idiotic. Does he have no awareness, or does he ignore the inconvenient in his noble quest to be acknowledged as a victim?

        Craven pig and fool.

    4. Only if you’re chasing victim recognition points and have checked what passes for your brain in with your local SJW organization.

    1. Well, Canada, Australia, Britain, the US and now France have been hit by homebrew jihadis recently. It’s everybody’s problem, whether they admit it or not.

      1. Yes, it is. The only thing that will stop the barbarians is fighting back. Appeasement only encourages them.

Comments are closed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: