Dave on the via media
Children children, calm down, they're only pictures. Actually Aaro is pretty reasonable here (or to put it another way, his view happens to coincide with mine) although:
a) I am as suspicious as a man on a raisins-only diet in a house full of rabbits about any attempts by Dave to say "both sides appear to be as silly as each other" because they are almost certainly trying to pave the way for some Decent policy or other, presumably in this case the incitement to religious hatred bill.
b) If you characterise an issue as being "as much about civility and tolerance as about rights and blasphemy" then we can note that out of the four member set [civility, tolerance, rights, blasphemy], only the third, rights, is something which is properly to do with the relationship between the individual and the state.
But anyhoo. Aaro's commenters are correct to note that online Decentism has got itself in a hell of a twist over this one; they have failed to follow the party line which Aaro correctly picked out and have been led down a blind alley into self-contradiction and confusion by their American first-amendmenting mates. Islamophobia makes strange bedfellows and despite what I think is the implicit "Oi! Cohen! No!" warning in this blog post I am slavering to see what Nick will do to this issue on Sunday. Rather like watching a Ming vase in the hands of a chimpanzee, if you are window-smashing drunk and aware that the vase is insured for three times its market value. Cyber Chutney Arse Ducks!
PS: Is it just me, or is it impossible to select text from Dave's blog posts to cut and paste it? I can select text in the comments but the post itself selects as a big block as if it were a graphic. DRM-tastic?
a) I am as suspicious as a man on a raisins-only diet in a house full of rabbits about any attempts by Dave to say "both sides appear to be as silly as each other" because they are almost certainly trying to pave the way for some Decent policy or other, presumably in this case the incitement to religious hatred bill.
b) If you characterise an issue as being "as much about civility and tolerance as about rights and blasphemy" then we can note that out of the four member set [civility, tolerance, rights, blasphemy], only the third, rights, is something which is properly to do with the relationship between the individual and the state.
But anyhoo. Aaro's commenters are correct to note that online Decentism has got itself in a hell of a twist over this one; they have failed to follow the party line which Aaro correctly picked out and have been led down a blind alley into self-contradiction and confusion by their American first-amendmenting mates. Islamophobia makes strange bedfellows and despite what I think is the implicit "Oi! Cohen! No!" warning in this blog post I am slavering to see what Nick will do to this issue on Sunday. Rather like watching a Ming vase in the hands of a chimpanzee, if you are window-smashing drunk and aware that the vase is insured for three times its market value. Cyber Chutney Arse Ducks!
PS: Is it just me, or is it impossible to select text from Dave's blog posts to cut and paste it? I can select text in the comments but the post itself selects as a big block as if it were a graphic. DRM-tastic?
posted by The Rioja Kid at 2/02/2006 06:00:00 PM
3 Comments:
It might just be you, as it works fine with me, e.g.
As ever there will be elements of truth in both propositions, as the loonies get stuck in.
and there's the first Nick prediction for Sunday.
Hate to say it but it's rather a sensible post from Mr A.
As for Nick, I think he will go on full outraged mode (and perhaps throw in Nick Griffin getting off as well)
that's weird, it's working now. I thought it was a quite clever DRM scheme.
Yes, hate speech laws has "sickening feeling of inevitability" doesn't it.
Post a Comment
<< Home