I probably won't be on chat or site as much as I'm getting stuff set up to get back into college and have a lot going on IRL. If you miss me you can reach me on skype. My username is zombiecen. Game nights will be on hold unless someone else wants to pick them up. Feel free.
Hope you're all doing well and hope to hear from ya.
Cenica joined on May 31st, 2013, since that has made 899 posts that are still accessible today, 8 of which are threads. Helping shape the community, Cenica has given 1271 upvotes, and was last online on Jan 27th, 2015.
Dear Misguided Person,
You are clearly not trying to help anyone here. People rejected you for a reason that does not seem to be what you think. Or at least the reason you use as your defense was not everyone's reasoning. Some of the things you say might have a point, but that point gets lost in your biased viewpoints and desperate attempts to make yourself relevant. Sorry to say this does nothing but make you look desperate and pathetic.
Rather than badmouthing others and trying to give others a bad image it's probably best if you just accept your loss and move on. The people here are not stupid, and if things are truly as you say they will see that even without your goading. You're not helping, and rather than being a vigilante you're an antagonist.
Despite everything I, in pure honesty, hope you are doing well and find something more rewarding to do with your time.
I thought you'd at least see, with everything that's happened, that maybe there is a reason that people are disagreeing with you. I'd hoped you'd at least take a little more care and consideration with decisions after I ditched you. Doesn't seem to be the case. Still hoping.
@CQKumber Darnit CQ! I was all excited because I thought you drew something.
Also that is awesome Lt. Very beautiful.
I like the idea of having icon imgs to replace folder imgs with. It seems pretty awesome.
@CQKumber DC is not attacking the thread. He was asking a legit question and has a legit point. These are not icon files or icons. There simply small images. Too small to do much of anything with. And he was questioning the point of having a thread like this on CL when you can do a google search, find a large img that you can crop like you want, and have a better gravatar or such
Some other news:
According to BBC an Al-Qeada group in Yemen is claiming responsibility for the attacks on Charlie Hebdo.
The video does appear to be genuine according to BBC's security correspondent though questions remain as to how closely the group was involved in the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
More than two years have elapsed since Said Kouachi, one of the three gunmen, is believed to have slipped out of Yemen after spending time there with al-Qaeda members, including the extremist preacher Anwar Al-Awlaki.
He is mentioned in the video in connection with the attack planning but Al-Awlaki was killed back in 2011 in a US drone strike so, again, that would be a long time to plan such a relatively simple but devastating attack.
New threats have arisen in response to the magazine's newest issue. The "survivors issue" as the magazine calls it features a depiction of the prophet Mohammed on the cover and Islamic extremists within. The issue is printed in six languages, including English, and proceeds will go to the survivors' families.
A Muslim institution in Egypt warned Charlie Hebdo not to publish this newest issue, and Dar El Ifta, Egypt's official Religious Edict Authority, said the magazine was "unnecessarily provoking the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide who love and respect the Prophet." The group also requested that French authorities stop the publication of the new issue because it "encourages religious division, deepens hatred and ignites conflict."
The Islamic State (IS) militant group said that the magazines publication was "an extremely stupid act."
Also for those not aware several mosques in France have come under attack since the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Twenty-six mosques from around France have suffered attack from grenades, firebombs, gunfire, and pigs heads in wake of the shooting on the French magazine. Since last Wednesday 60 incidents have been reported.
While reportedly these attacks are not rare they have undergone in increase in frequency since the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said last week that the word “Islamist” should not be used to described the murderers, but rather “terrorist”.
“The terrorists' religion is not Islam, which they are betraying. It's barbarity,” he said.
In response to the attacks armed guards have been placed at some of the mosques across France.
I find it a bit funny that this thread is largely questioning the ethics of the magazine rather than discussing the events that transpired and are still going on. That seems more like an argument of "they deserved it" vs. "they're allowed to say whatever they want".
Some of this seem to be insinuating that the magazines personnel were asking for this tragedy by publishing their viewpoints in such a satirical way.
Personally I don't care what the magazine published, but from the cartoons posted it seem like an attempt to address some pretty serious issues and does have a legitimate standpoint. Also bear in mind that covers are meant to grab people's attention and are usually further detailed within a periodical's pages as to what they are actually talking about. It's also a printed periodical which kind of rules out the belief that it's clickbait.
I already said I believed that the magazine could say what it wanted to and all so I won't go back over that and beat a dead horse.
The point is that regardless of what was printed the shooting was, plain fact, the wrong response and a terrible tragedy. I'm sure many of the survivors are still coming to terms with what happened. Regardless of whether I agree with their viewpoints or not I sympathize for their tragedy.
Some bit of news:
The event caused the magazine to become a figurehead for a free speech movement. Je Suis Charlie (I am Charlie) was quickly picked up by free speech advocates and was featured on the magazines website after it came back online; it had gone offline after the shooting.
In response to the attack magazine has been granted generous donations from both the French government as well as from the Digital Innovation Press Fund (google included in this group). There are a few more groups that have donated to the magazine as well.
Charlie Hebdo was set to print 5 million copies of their next issue, their demand skyrocketing, and all of the copies were sold out by Wednesday morning. Many of those that sold the periodical reported receiving reservation requests for it. Charlie Hebdo's print run is normally 60,000 copies.
The newest edition of the magazine does not back down in any way from it's right to say what it chooses.
(All is forgiven. I am Charlie.)
As I mentioned before the magazines survivors are being hailed as heroes now; the results of continuing on after the terrorist attack.
Many rallied to show support for the magazine and it's rights to free speech. While I can understand showing support I can see Jack's point:
So I personally think what started out as a cry saying "free speech is important, despite some insults that can happen" is now just a big hyped up psuedo-movement for people like the leaders that were there marching, to get brownie points with the public.
when it comes to using the magazine as a figurehead for the free speech movement. It feels like many are using the tragedy of the shooting to further their own careers and renown.
No need to repeat yourself I read that part before but there are a few questions to it. Since you brought it up.
What terrorists do you think the media is trying to get back at? Are you talking about media in general or the French magazine?
Also not sure what you mean by this
the 3 gunmen were the only group with the "cause" that led to the shooting
as the wording is a bit strange. But Kip pointed out earlier that Muslim groups had been protesting such media which does add more people to that cause.
This probably could have been avoided if they had listened to the Muslims who have been protesting since 2006 to stop the publication of offensive Muslim stereotypes, and to stop depicting insulting images of Muhammad.
The three gunmen were just the only ones that responded as they did. And not quite sure why you're putting cause in quotes as there is nothing hypothetical about it. Pretty sure wanting to accomplish the goals that Kip mentioned in her post is a legitimate cause.
Last I knew Muslim was a religion not a race.
Personally, I don't care if it's not meant to be racist, if groups of people get offended with a relatively legitimate reason, it is offensive.
All in all I think it is okay to be offended by the material but the actions taken were quite overboard. In that respect I'm much in agreement with what Taro said.
I think a lot of the debate in the UK (and around Europe) has been more relating to the right to offend. Whilst it is hardly fair or nice to deliberately publish offensive material a) it's optional to consume this, and b) everyone has the right to reply in a like and legal fashion.
The actions taken brought more attention to something it seems they were trying to silence and the offensive material came to the attention of an even wider audience.
Had just action been taken I feel there would be a better argument here for sympathizing with the Muslim group's cause. Cause not actions. I'm not saying you're agreeing with the shooting part, but it does seem that you're agreeing with their offense and desire to silence the magazine's biased publications. Also as someone who has tried to have religious discussions, I can well understand having to deal with negative bias and being offended by it. But there are several more mature ways of handling it. Such as ignoring it, running a legit boycott, protest, or starting a petition.
I do not believe that Charlie Hebdo was at fault for it's publications.
(Notice: I am not saying I agree with their opinions and viewpoints.)
I have not read anything from Charlie Hebdo and before this tragic shooting I knew nothing of the publication. Yet, you don't have to read any of the magazines to have a firm viewpoint on media and free speech rights.
People have the right and the ability to say and/or publish whatever they want to say or publish. It does not take a genius to access the internet and all the media and social networking sites it contains. Viewpoints and opinions, whether you agree with them or not, can easily reach a wide audience. Even the smallest least agreed with voice can reach across the world.
That said, in thinking people can say what they want, I also believe that they have to follow the rules, be responsible for their own voices, and the backlash that they get as a result: to a point. Shooting people for saying something you dislike is simply wrong and if it were a common practice I think just about everyone would be dead by this point. If there had been counterarguments, boycotts, and protests; I believe the voice of the outraged Muslim party would have had a better reach and standpoint. That would have been the mature and right way to handle things.
The shooting seems counterproductive to whatever goal the Muslims had in mind. Rather than silencing the media, the attack has raised the personnel of Charlie Hebdo into the ranks of heroes, a magazine that I formerly knew nothing about (and would not have agreed with or paid much mind to if I had) is now involved in worldwide media as a tragic victim, and the group has done nothing to reduce the bias against Muslims.
TL:DR I don't think that Charlie Hebdo was fair or right with their publications however they are allowed to say whatever they please, and I also do not believe it is right to go shooting people for saying something you dislike, disagree with, or find a personal affront.
Bloop. Still practicing. This was meant to be the owlgirl but ended up not being owlish enough I think. Back to the drawing board