Mass Shooting At Newspaper In Paris

You have to regret this comparison already, right?

 

I wasn't the one making the comparisons.

"Slippery slope" arguments are dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

The New York Times is perfectly capable of deciding whether to run a photo with too much skin, independent of whether it decided to run a photo of a religious icon. It is also capable of deciding whether to run a photo of an athlete's baloney pony independent of these decisions.

 

No one has made the argument that the current Charlie cartoon is outside the lines of community standards of decency.

The argument is that it might offend some.

Everything published might offend "some".

Editors and producers have decided not to make uncomfortable decisions, and have outsourced them to a single, hypothetical Muslim family in Brooklyn. What we imagine might offend them is now where we draw the line.

 

How many outlets ran video of the Parisian cop getting gunned down in cold blood?

How many newspapers ran the picture of him with his hands up, begging for his life?

Could that not have offended anyone? His brother specifically criticized outlets that ran it. Why not just describe it?

 

What you seem to be arguing is that only quantity matters - how many people might be offended? A majority of people would be offended by the player's meatscicle, hypothetically.

But intensity matters, as well. The hypothetical family in Brooklyn would really be offended by the cartoon, for reasons that the Times has deemed merit some consideration.

Everything's not a straight majority vote.

 

In theory, maybe.

But when standards are rolling down the hill as we speak, should we not point it out?

 

We're talking about one publication right now.

 

Bullshit. Were Catholics not really offended by "Piss Christ" and the "Holy Virgin Mary"?

The Times ran images of both, and folks who said they were offended were widely mocked as prudes.

But now the idea that we shouldn't publish something because it might offend one hypothetical family? It's outrageous, and it's as dumb as the idea that any policy tha might "save one life" is worth pursuing.

 

But it's not a slippery slope. You've moved onto responding to an argument that I'm not making.

 

Baquet was not in charge when those other images ran. I will say, however, it makes the Times look bad when it runs a cartoon depicting Holocaust denial, yet not this.

I'm not sure it's anything more than unseemly journalism, though. It's certainly not evidence of the widespread kowtowing to Muslims by the liberal machine, nor of the War on Christianity™.

 

Of course it is.

It's certainly widespread. (Though not limited to liberal outlets.) And, we've already moved from not showing demeaning images of the Prophet to not showing any image of the Prophet, which isn't even banned by Islam, and was widespread up until the 17th century.

You know, we joke about things, saying "if we don't go shopping," or some other such thing, "the terrorists have won."

Well, in this case, the terrorists literally have won.

 

That's not true. They're difficult to use effectively and easy to misuse, but the concern can often be real and important. Making decisions with no eye towards the future ramifications is foolish.

I'm not saying that this is a good use of it...