Je Suis Charlie

[chikusho]

I'm going to qoute Richard Jomshof from the Sweden Democrats on this one:

"Take for example Egypt, where close to 50% of the population in the election 2014 chose to vote on the islamistic Muslim Brotherhood. 25% chose to vote on the islamistic Salafists. All in all, a crushing majority of the electorate chose to support anti-democratic islamists. Do not come to me and say, that these issues concern only a small minority."

That's pretty much my stance on the matter. Of course not ALL muslims are islamists, even to claim such a thing would be absurd. However, there is no doubt that there are MANY muslims that are islamist, or harbor some form of sympathy for islamist. And considering how many muslims there are worldwide(over 1 billion, IIRC), it only takes maybe 10% for them to be a serious threat to the western world. And if Egypt and this study ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/30/us-islam-views-survey-idUSBRE93T0TK20130430 ) are anything to go by, it's probably far more than 10%.

I'm not saying we should ban all mosquees and be immediately suspicious of all muslims. I'm just saying this problem goes far, far deeper than many people(even in this thread) care to admit. A disappearingly small minority of muslims will commit acts of terrorism. A significantly larger minority however, will cheer them on when they do, and help reinforce when they get in trouble.

Je Suis Charlie

I'd just like to point that there's a similar problem with Europeans in general.

Take for example Sweden, where 801 178 of the population in the election 2014 chose to vote on the racist party the Sweden Democrats. All in all, an enormous amount of the electorate chose to support anti-democratic fascists. Do not come to me and say, that these issues concern only a small minority.

That's pretty much my stance on the matter. Almost every country in Europe has an extreme right, nationalistic racist party in their government, and there are at least 9 of them represented in the European parliament.

Of course, not ALL Europeans are racist, even to claim such a thing would be absurd. However, there is no doubt that there are MANY Europeans that are racist, or harbor some sort of sympathy for racists. And considering how many Europeans (around 750 million, IIRC) it only takes maybe 10% of them to be a serious threat to the western world. And if Europe and this huge swath of studies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Europe#References ) are anything to go by, it's probably far more than 10%.

I'm not saying we should ban all nationalism and be immediately suspicious of all Europeans. I'm just saying this problem goes far, far deeper than many people (even in this thread) care to admit. A disappearingly small minority of Europeans will commit acts of terrorism. A significantly larger minority however, will cheer them on when they do, and help reinforce when they get in trouble.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Ya know, I actually try and think of a way to mock these idiots. Didn't come up with jack. All I got was "Lovely, more terrorist trash making the rest of their religion look bad and that needs taking out badly."

Do exactly what thousands do on the internet every May 20th - the "international draw the prophet muhammed day"

A breibart article put it well: The best thing we can do is continue the satire. Make fun of the stupidity of the people who think that they can threaten and bully us into submission.

The problem I have with that is that it's also offending the good people of that religion. the response should be aimed solely at the heretics responsible for these murders, and no one else. Preferably the 'aiming' is through the scope of a high powered sniper rifle a mile away.

It's what they deserve after all.

But we shouldn't be going out of our way to antagonize the whole religion. All that's gonna do is inspire more of these people to lash out like this.

 

[Dimitriov]

Its not so much about being a human being, as being sane. And its not so much about being insane, as it is about being religious. There is not a single reason in the world that can justify acting like this other than religion. I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Religion is BAD. PERIOD. It contributes NOTHING to society. Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit, and even worse, its immune to criticism because some skyman laid down the rules.

The people that did this are bad. But their religion is ALSO bad. Its BAD. I wish people would get it through their heads. Thats whats so important about freedom of speech. We HAVE to be able to critique and mock this madness, how else would we be able to point out the madness of it? Rationality doesnt work on these people, and rationality even works on my dog, as long as I explain it in a language she understands. You cant argue with religion, so it should be destroyed. Slowely but surely. I dream of the day when we can finally be rid of this bullshit.

It's true. Because everyone was happy and friendly and held hands singing before religion was invented and ruined everything.

Oh wait, no. The reason religion is used to justify shitty things is because people are shitty, and has nothing to do with religion at all. As clearly evidenced by all the other made up bullshit people use to justify hating the "other" whomever that may be.

Politics, philosophical ideologies, skin colour, sexuality, sex. All have been used to the exact same effect as religion.

Speaking as an atheist, to all other benighted atheists out there, religion is not bad. No more so than science is. Both are simply different ways of looking at and understanding the world and our place in it. Do you blame science itself for the atomic bomb? What about the scientists who did the research leading up to that technology (not the ones who actually worked on the Manhattan Project)?

Seriously religion is just a part of humanity. It can absolutely be used to justify horrible things but to blame religion itself is a strawman argument.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I must react when I see people asking why this is such a big deal. I live in Paris, I am french, I never liked Charlie Hebdo, and I am deeply horrified. This is not about the number of people who died, this is not about their religion, not about their origins (one of the cops who got killed is named "Ahmed" btw). This is like 9/11 to us here, not because of the number, not because of the horrifyingly spectacular attack. It is about the symbol, it is about being attacked right at the center of Paris, about seeing the guys executing coldly a policeman who surrendered, about the direct and brutal agression against our most fundamental principles.

This is no time to "warn us" that the guys at Charlie Hebdo were no heroes, no time to say that we should care about everyone who dies because of these fanatics, we are mourning and we are outraged. This should not be so hard to understand. People at Charlie Hebdo are heroes to us now, they can't be anything else, it's not about who they really were but about what the represents to us.

You might also want to have a read at this, it sums up pretty well my opinion : http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders

About muslims in France... it is not as bad as what I read here. Sadly there was some isolated actions (no one was hurt luckily) and that's disgusting. Most french people are perfectly aware that muslim are not fanatics, we have a lot of them in Paris and around Paris and we live together fairly well. My district is full of muslims and jews and no one is shooting anyone. People are angry at brutality and ignorance, we do not ask for blood. Even our "dear" Front National stressed the fact that no one was blaming muslims. Well, not "no one", you always have stupid people around. But most french people just want the criminals brought to justice.

To be fair, I am almost offended that I have to explain this. But we live in a society where you are allowed to offend me. The people at Charlie Hebdo died because fanatics think that this society should not exist. And that's why this is a big deal.


PS. Il y a quelques français adeptes d'Escapist oui

That was a good read, It nice to have an opinion of someone living in France. I hope this doesn't turn into a culture war over this.

 

[geizr]

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

I had never heard of all this until now, but I decided to check out the link you supplied. I find these statements from the article interesting:

Here?s what?s difficult to parse in the face of tragedy: yes, Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ?attack everyone equally,? the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic.

These are, by even the most generous assessment, incredibly racist cartoons. Hebdo?s goal is to provoke, and these cartoons make it very clear who the white editorial staff was interested in provoking: France?s incredibly marginalized, often attacked, Muslim immigrant community.

Now, I understand that calling someone a ?racist asshole? after their murder is a callous thing to do, and I don?t do it lightly. This isn?t ambiguous, though: the editorial staff of Hebdo consistently aimed to provoke Muslims. They ascribe to the same edgy-white-guy mentality that many American cartoonists do: nothing is sacred, sacred targets are funnier, lighten up, criticism is censorship. And just like American cartoonists, they and their supporters are wrong. White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire, and needs to be called out. People getting upset does not prove that the satire was good. And, this is the hardest part, the murder of the satirists in question does not prove that their satire was good. Their satire was bad, and remains bad. Their satire was racist, and remains racist.

While I am not about to condone the brutal murdering of other human beings for saying nasty things, let's be honest about reality: if you keep kicking a dog, don't be surprised that one day he turns around and bites your leg off. This action by a few Islamic extremists is unconscionable, uncalled for, and absolutely horrific. However, given the material that I'm seeing here from Charlie Hebdo and what I'm reading so far of their publication history, I'm not at all surprised at the eventual response.

Something the Internet, and seemingly this whole Millennial generation, just doesn't seem to understand is that, despite free speech, you don't get to just be an asshole to whomever you want without eventually getting some response, usually one you will not like. And it doesn't matter whether you're on the Internet or in-person, you need to think about what you are saying/doing, to whom you are saying/doing it, and under what circumstances you are saying/doing it, and you need to understand how the other person may be affected or react to it. Also, when criticizing a group or other person, there are good ways and bad ways of going about it. Pseudo-intellectual rationalizations of idealism are not license to just treat others like shit as you see fit.

A point the article above makes, and I agree, there is a distinction between good satire and being just plain mean and disrespectful (part of the reason I don't read Critical Miss as much anymore is because it's lost the enjoyable stories, even the depressing arch of Erin's developing psychosis, and has become just plain bitter and mean, lashing out wildly at just about everyone; I only poked my nose in today because I saw reference to Charlie Hebdo elsewhere and became curious).

ADDENDUM: A comment at the end of the article I think is very, very appropriate, and the Internet really needs to learn this lesson, as do some "intellectual" types who, in my opinion, really should already know better:

I would also add that freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility for that speech either.

 

[awesomeClaw]

I'm going to qoute Richard Jomshof from the Sweden Democrats on this one:

"Take for example Egypt, where close to 50% of the population in the election 2014 chose to vote on the islamistic Muslim Brotherhood. 25% chose to vote on the islamistic Salafists. All in all, a crushing majority of the electorate chose to support anti-democratic islamists. Do not come to me and say, that these issues concern only a small minority."

That's pretty much my stance on the matter. Of course not ALL muslims are islamists, even to claim such a thing would be absurd. However, there is no doubt that there are MANY muslims that are islamist, or harbor some form of sympathy for islamist. And considering how many muslims there are worldwide(over 1 billion, IIRC), it only takes maybe 10% for them to be a serious threat to the western world. And if Egypt and this study ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/30/us-islam-views-survey-idUSBRE93T0TK20130430 ) are anything to go by, it's probably far more than 10%.

I'm not saying we should ban all mosquees and be immediately suspicious of all muslims. I'm just saying this problem goes far, far deeper than many people(even in this thread) care to admit. A disappearingly small minority of muslims will commit acts of terrorism. A significantly larger minority however, will cheer them on when they do, and help reinforce when they get in trouble.

Je Suis Charlie

I'd just like to point that there's a similar problem with Europeans in general.

Take for example Sweden, where 801 178 of the population in the election 2014 chose to vote on the racist party the Sweden Democrats. All in all, an enormous amount of the electorate chose to support anti-democratic fascists. Do not come to me and say, that these issues concern only a small minority.

That's pretty much my stance on the matter. Almost every country in Europe has an extreme right, nationalistic racist party in their government, and there are at least 9 of them represented in the European parliament.

Of course, not ALL Europeans are racist, even to claim such a thing would be absurd. However, there is no doubt that there are MANY Europeans that are racist, or harbor some sort of sympathy for racists. And considering how many Europeans (around 750 million, IIRC) it only takes maybe 10% of them to be a serious threat to the western world. And if Europe and this huge swath of studies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Europe#References ) are anything to go by, it's probably far more than 10%.

I'm not saying we should ban all nationalism and be immediately suspicious of all Europeans. I'm just saying this problem goes far, far deeper than many people (even in this thread) care to admit. A disappearingly small minority of Europeans will commit acts of terrorism. A significantly larger minority however, will cheer them on when they do, and help reinforce when they get in trouble.

That's very clever. I'd argue that the Sweden Democrats are neither racist nor facist, but that's a topic for another time.

But let's assume you used Golden Dawn(in Greece) as an example instead of the Sweden Democrats. I'd then argue that everything you copied from me would be equally true in it's new form. Of course it's a huge problem when organised racism and nazism gains a foothold, and of course even a small minority (10-20%) can do huge harm for years to come.

Overall I don't see what you're getting at here. If you could explain further I'd be happy to respond.

 

[This Place is DEAD]

I would also add that freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility for that speech either.

Sounds pretty close to 'Nice freedom of speech you got there. Better respect muh feelz, it would be a pity if something happened to your Freedom.' for my taste.

 

[Vivi22]

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

Regardless of whether you think they're racist or not (and I haven't seen any real evidence they are. That article you linked doesn't convince me, especially when towards the bottom the author seems to take offense to some of the most benign cartoons in reaction to the shooting and call basically call them racist), no content produced by anyone is grounds for killing them. Ever.

These guys could have been Nazi's doing cartoons about how the Jew's are destroying the world and I'd still be on the side of solidarity with them in this. Not because I agree with their ideology, but because this shooting had nothing to do with what their ideology was and everything to do with some people who can't handle that and seek to actively destroy people who don't agree with them.

Racists are just assholes. People who kill because they're incapable of turning the other cheek is a threat to everyone, and our fundamental rights as people.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

Religions have become a race? Good to know.

 

[senordesol]

While I am not about to condone the brutal murdering of other human beings for saying nasty things, let's be honest about reality: if you keep kicking a dog, don't be surprised that one day he turns around and bites your leg off. This action by a few Islamic extremists is unconscionable, uncalled for, and absolutely horrific. However, given the material that I'm seeing here from Charlie Hebdo and what I'm reading so far of their publication history, I'm not at all surprised at the eventual response.

Something the Internet, and seemingly this whole Millennial generation, just doesn't seem to understand is that, despite free speech, you don't get to just be an asshole to whomever you want without eventually getting some response, usually one you will not like. And it doesn't matter whether you're on the Internet or in-person, you need to think about what you are saying/doing, to whom you are saying/doing it, and under what circumstances you are saying/doing it, and you need to understand how the other person may be affected or react to it. Also, when criticizing a group or other person, there are good ways and bad ways of going about it. Pseudo-intellectual rationalizations of idealism are not license to just treat others like shit as you see fit.

A point the article above makes, and I agree, there is a distinction between good satire and being just plain mean and disrespectful (part of the reason I don't read Critical Miss as much anymore is because it's lost the enjoyable stories, even the depressing arch of Erin's developing psychosis, and has become just plain bitter and mean, lashing out wildly at just about everyone; I only poked my nose in today because I saw reference to Charlie Hebdo elsewhere and became curious).

No dogs were kicked. No one is forced to read that newspaper. You are free to ignore it, just as you are free to ignore offensive movies.

Whether these were true satirists or unapologetic racists, no one was forced to consume their material. You make it sound as if these people were forced into some long-suffering that caused them to crack when that couldn't be further from the truth.

If they were offended, it is because they decided to be offended. After all, they could have:
1. Written a letter of complaint
2. Published a counter-point periodical
3. Leave for a region where the periodical isn't published
4. Call for a boycott
5. Ignore it entirely

All of these were very real options, but instead they chose murder. There is no justification for that. There is no reason to blame the victims for that. If we are too terrified to speak our minds, even what dwells within the vilest, darkest recesses of it; the terrorists win. A special class -a double standard- gets created where our speakers are not obliged to say what needs to be said, but to speak only what SOMEONE ELSE says they can.

 

[geizr]

I would also add that freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility for that speech either.

Sounds pretty close to 'Nice freedom of speech you got there. Better respect muh feelz, it would be a pity if something happened to your Freedom.' for my taste.

It means that you don't get to just do or say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, for whatever reason you want without there being consequences to the act. Those consequences may be good or bad, depending on the circumstances and the individuals involved, but you WILL be the one to deal with and receive those consequences. It's not a threat of any sort; it's a statement of the causal nature of the Universe. If you don't want bad responses, don't treat others like shit. If you do treat others like shit, be prepared for a shitty response in kind. Simple personal accountability and Golden Rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Human interaction is not a one-way street where you get to just treat other people however you want but better not anyone say or do anything against it. Only a 5-year would think that way. And it doesn't matter whether you're on the Internet, in a forum, in a multiplayer game, or face-to-face in real-life, the rules and etiquettes of human interaction still apply.

 

[chikusho]

That's very clever. I'd argue that the Sweden Democrats are neither racist nor facist, but that's a topic for another time.

But let's assume you used Golden Dawn(in Greece) as an example instead of the Sweden Democrats. I'd then argue that everything you copied from me would be equally true in it's new form. Of course it's a huge problem when organised racism and nazism gains a foothold, and of course even a small minority (10-20%) can do huge harm for years to come.

Overall I don't see what you're getting at here. If you could explain further I'd be happy to respond.

The point is that you quoted a person who's openly defended openly racist and fascist statements, and is a member of a racist and fascist party that's growing in popularity. He's not a credible source for information on anything. The kind of rhetoric he uses (and by extention, you used) to sow and strengthen islamophobia among his party supporters is immediately turned on its head the moment you exchange the target for a known quantity that's close and familiar to the recipient of the message.

Not only is it nonsense, but generalizing statements and beliefs like those are actually making the problem worse, by creating an even wider gap between the exposed group and the rest of the world. It's yet another thing for people with a racist confirmation bias to add to their list of proof of the atrocity that is Islam, and at the same time it gives muslims very tangible reasons to be fearful and suspicious of everyone in the western world. Especially considering that this person somehow actually got both supporters and authority in the governance of a country. And that's actually far more dangerous than a small militant extremist group.

 

[RicoADF]

"some idiots" what a nice way to try and play around the whole fact that they are Muslim, and that this is a Muslim thing.

Being Muslim has nothing to do with it, these people were idiots and it's not an exclusive thing to Muslim's. Extremists do this because they think their right, weather it's religious, political or whatever motivation the results are the same. Some idiot goes too far for the dumbest reason.

 

[manic_depressive13]

The stuff they published was pretty grossly racist. If someone massacred people who worked for a white supremacist magazine in America, would we see shirts, signs and cartoons tomorrow saying "I am KKK"?

Is it possible to condemn an horrific injustice without supporting the questionable attitudes of the victims? Is it possible to denounce the work of the victims without implicitly blaming them? These are real questions. I have no idea.

 

[This Place is DEAD]

I would also add that freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility for that speech either.

Sounds pretty close to 'Nice freedom of speech you got there. Better respect muh feelz, it would be a pity if something happened to your Freedom.' for my taste.

It means that you don't get to just do or say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, for whatever reason you want without there being consequences to the act. Those consequences may be good or bad, depending on the circumstances and the individuals involved, but you WILL be the one to deal with and receive those consequences. It's not a threat of any sort; it's a statement of the causal nature of the Universe. If you don't want bad responses, don't treat others like shit. If you do treat others like shit, be prepared for a shitty response in kind. Simple personal accountability and Golden Rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Human interaction is not a one-way street where you get to just treat other people however you want but better not anyone say or do anything against it. Only a 5-year would think that way. And it doesn't matter whether you're on the Internet, in a forum, in a multiplayer game, or face-to-face in real-life, the rules and etiquettes of human interaction still apply.

Like the #1 rule of human interaction: Don't kill anybody because you disagree about whatever topic with him.

You basically say, the satirists in Paris got what they asked for.

I read this sentiment a lot today, most of the times thinly veiled like in your post. I can only shake my head in disgust and disbelief. They acted on their right as a citizen of a saecular state, in this case France and other people terminally denied them their citizen rights. That's the whole case. No 'if they had bowed down and shut up, nothing would have happened to them' bullcrap.

 

[awesomeClaw]

That's very clever. I'd argue that the Sweden Democrats are neither racist nor facist, but that's a topic for another time.

But let's assume you used Golden Dawn(in Greece) as an example instead of the Sweden Democrats. I'd then argue that everything you copied from me would be equally true in it's new form. Of course it's a huge problem when organised racism and nazism gains a foothold, and of course even a small minority (10-20%) can do huge harm for years to come.

Overall I don't see what you're getting at here. If you could explain further I'd be happy to respond.

The point is that you quoted a person who's openly defended openly racist and fascist statements, and is a member of a racist and fascist party that's growing in popularity. He's not a credible source for information on anything. The kind of rhetoric he uses (and by extention, you used) to sow and strengthen islamophobia among his party supporters is immediately turned on its head the moment you exchange the target for a known quantity that's close and familiar to the recipient of the message.

Not only is it nonsense, but generalizing statements and beliefs like those are actually making the problem worse, by creating an even wider gap between the exposed group and the rest of the world. It's yet another thing for people with a racist confirmation bias to add to their list of proof of the atrocity that is Islam, and at the same time it gives muslims very tangible reasons to be fearful and suspicious of everyone in the western world. Especially considering that this person somehow actually got both supporters and authority in the governance of a country. And that's actually far more dangerous than a small militant extremist group.

Nothing Mr Jomshof said is nonsense. What you just said however, is exactly that.

Let´s, for sake of the argument, assume The Sweden Democrats is a racist/fascist party. Just because Richard Jomshof is a member of a racist party, that does not mean everything he says is automatically wrong. To even try and claim that is insane. So what if he's defended "openly racist statements"? What bearing does this have on the statistics he's qouting or the arguments he's presenting? If one of these disgusting terrorists that killed all these people tomorrow came out and said that the sky is blue or that America is suffering from an economic crisis, would we all then immediately agree the sky is green and that America is just fine, simply because he's committed grave crimes in other, unrelated areas? If you have sources that conflict with what Mr Jomshof said, then by all means, present and I will take back all I've said.

Jomshof is simply saying that there is a bigger problem with this than we like to admit, and that we need to support the liberal forces in muslim countries more, so that we can keep the islamists in check.

Further on...you seem a bit confused here, mate. First you say that the argument is completely turned on his head if you replace it with something "familiar", but it's not. It's just as true if you replace "radical islamists" with "racists". If 10-20% of a group is radicalised, that IS dangerous, no matter which group. That goes for every group out there.

The problem of racism in Europe goes deep. Just like the issue of radical islamism in Muslim countries.

Concerning your final statement, I'm a bit baffled. So the islamist who got 75% of the vote in Egypt, DON'T have any popular support NOR any authority in how Egypt is governed? I'm violently interested in how you came to that conclusion, friend.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I would also add that freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility for that speech either.

Sounds pretty close to 'Nice freedom of speech you got there. Better respect muh feelz, it would be a pity if something happened to your Freedom.' for my taste.

It means that you don't get to just do or say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, for whatever reason you want without there being consequences to the act. Those consequences may be good or bad, depending on the circumstances and the individuals involved, but you WILL be the one to deal with and receive those consequences.

But Fucking Murder should never be a consequence for simply saying whatever you want. Those 2 could have done anything, fucking anything else, then Murdering Cartoonists. They chose to Murder people they disagreed with. They even murdered people who were begging to be spared.

Let me put it you this way: Would you be okay Matt Stone and Trey Parker being murdered by a Christian because of their Depictions of Jesus Christ as a Drug Addicted Ninja, thus they should've expected it because they pissed off Christians?

EDIT: Actually, here's a different question: Most people would be against your opinion. So would it be okay if you're permabanned from this site, get fired from your job, get kicked out of your house, and get beaten 24/7 for your opinion? Like you said, every action you take has consequences.

 

[geizr]

While I am not about to condone the brutal murdering of other human beings for saying nasty things, let's be honest about reality: if you keep kicking a dog, don't be surprised that one day he turns around and bites your leg off. This action by a few Islamic extremists is unconscionable, uncalled for, and absolutely horrific. However, given the material that I'm seeing here from Charlie Hebdo and what I'm reading so far of their publication history, I'm not at all surprised at the eventual response.

Something the Internet, and seemingly this whole Millennial generation, just doesn't seem to understand is that, despite free speech, you don't get to just be an asshole to whomever you want without eventually getting some response, usually one you will not like. And it doesn't matter whether you're on the Internet or in-person, you need to think about what you are saying/doing, to whom you are saying/doing it, and under what circumstances you are saying/doing it, and you need to understand how the other person may be affected or react to it. Also, when criticizing a group or other person, there are good ways and bad ways of going about it. Pseudo-intellectual rationalizations of idealism are not license to just treat others like shit as you see fit.

A point the article above makes, and I agree, there is a distinction between good satire and being just plain mean and disrespectful (part of the reason I don't read Critical Miss as much anymore is because it's lost the enjoyable stories, even the depressing arch of Erin's developing psychosis, and has become just plain bitter and mean, lashing out wildly at just about everyone; I only poked my nose in today because I saw reference to Charlie Hebdo elsewhere and became curious).

No dogs were kicked. No one is forced to read that newspaper. You are free to ignore it, just as you are free to ignore offensive movies.

Whether these were true satirists or unapologetic racists, no one was forced to consume their material. You make it sound as if these people were forced into some long-suffering that caused them to crack when that couldn't be further from the truth.

If they were offended, it is because they decided to be offended. After all, they could have:
1. Written a letter of complaint
2. Published a counter-point periodical
3. Leave for a region where the periodical isn't published
4. Call for a boycott
5. Ignore it entirely

All of these were very real options, but instead they chose murder. There is no justification for that. There is no reason to blame the victims for that. If we are too terrified to speak our minds, even what dwells within the vilest, darkest recesses of it; the terrorists win. A special class -a double standard- gets created where our speakers are not obliged to say what needs to be said, but to speak only what SOMEONE ELSE says they can.

You're right, there were many other options that could have been exercised other than murder. I think I mentioned that the murder is not justified in any way. If you think I'm blaming the victim, then perhaps I am, because the fact is, in real-life, actions have consequences, and those consequences are usually calculable ahead of time if one is attentive and able to think past one's own idealized preconceptions. Just as an aside, those same responses you list are responses that gamers could be called to task on for not employing in regards to various outspoken individuals who have had negative comments regarding gamers and games.

Here's the thing, when you make highly inflammatory remarks and commentary about a particular group knowing that they may not respond well, then one can not be surprised at the extremely negative response, particularly when those remarks are being propagated in the wide open. While no group should ever be beyond criticism, there are good ways and bad ways to proceed about that criticism. Beating the hornets' nest is generally a bad way to go about it. Would you walk into the den of a black gang in Compton and shout "I hate all you n--gers cause you're stupid, useless trash, and I think you should all die and stop being a burden on the country"? Whether or not the criticism is justified (or even true; BTW, I'm a black guy, just to set some context, here, and just in case you were wonder, no, I am not Muslim) would be immaterial, the likely response you'll get is a lot of high-velocity, small pointed metal objects launched in your general direction; so, it would not be a good way to go about the criticism. Do you have a right to say it? Absolutely. However, the audience, venue, and manner of the criticism was poorly chosen, choice that you, as the speaker, would have made.

Let me make one thing clear, I absolutely am NOT advocating some speech police that goes around telling people what they can and cannot say. What I AM saying is that people need to be more personally accountable for how their actions and words can affect others. There are CONSEQUENCES for those actions or words, whether you like it or not, and being the one who chooses to take such actions, you do bear some responsibility for the outcome. Human beings will always be human beings and will respond as human beings do, regardless if it is on the Internet, in a game, or in real-life; this is a known and knowable fact. Therefore, as human beings, we need to think before we act how our actions may be perceived by others and how others may respond to those actions. This is a simple reality. Sure, it would be a nice ideal if you could just blurt whatever you want to whomever you want and not have to deal with any repercussions, good or bad, afterwards. But, this is real life, not the ideal. Human beings aren't unfeeling robots. While it is true that is not possible to know exactly how anyone or any one group may respond to our actions, it is not outside our intellect to make some reasonable guesses and calculate the likely resultant outcomes. Where I generally find people make the error in this calculation is that they either stop at the point they determine the benefits to themselves (hence completely disregarding the recipient of the action), or they try to convince themselves, through contrived mental scenarios built upon unfounded and erroneous rationalizations, why the other person or group would just be somehow okay with the action to be taken.

 

[geizr]

I would also add that freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility for that speech either.

Sounds pretty close to 'Nice freedom of speech you got there. Better respect muh feelz, it would be a pity if something happened to your Freedom.' for my taste.

It means that you don't get to just do or say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, for whatever reason you want without there being consequences to the act. Those consequences may be good or bad, depending on the circumstances and the individuals involved, but you WILL be the one to deal with and receive those consequences. It's not a threat of any sort; it's a statement of the causal nature of the Universe. If you don't want bad responses, don't treat others like shit. If you do treat others like shit, be prepared for a shitty response in kind. Simple personal accountability and Golden Rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Human interaction is not a one-way street where you get to just treat other people however you want but better not anyone say or do anything against it. Only a 5-year would think that way. And it doesn't matter whether you're on the Internet, in a forum, in a multiplayer game, or face-to-face in real-life, the rules and etiquettes of human interaction still apply.

Like the #1 rule of human interaction: Don't kill anybody because you disagree about whatever topic with him.

You basically say, the satirists in Paris got what they asked for.

I read this sentiment a lot today, most of the times thinly veiled like in your post. I can only shake my head in disgust and disbelief. They acted on their right as a citizen of a saecular state, in this case France and other people terminally denied them their citizen rights. That's the whole case. No 'if they had bowed down and shut up, nothing would have happened to them' bullcrap.

I agree with your first point that one shouldn't kill someone else just because of a disagreement over a topic. That's stupid, but, that's also human beings. However, I do not agree with your interpretation of my post because it is not what I was trying to communicate. What I am trying to communicate is that, like it or not, human beings behave as human beings do. One needs to account for human responses, both good and bad, in taking some action that may affect others. Did they ASK to be murdered? Hell, no. No one ever asks for that unless they're suicidal or psychotic. However, it is not hard to see that if one keeps stirring the pot too hard, that there could be trouble in the aftermath. Good or bad, deserved or not, actions have consequences. It's not a threat; it's not statement of them deserving it; it's simply a statement that the Universe is causal in nature, and human beings will behave as human beings. If you are going to say or do something against another human being, you need to give some thought to what their response may be and govern yourself accordingly.

 

[Bombiz]

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

As a Iranian who was born in Montreal and lived in the US for 11 years
No of those images really offended my. People need to calme down.