Je Suis Charlie

[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.

 

[chikusho]

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?

Right or wrong, he's not a credible source of information due to having a vested interest in sowing dissent. Particularly here by shaping a narrative that is beneficial to his cause. Even if he reports every digit correctly that does not automatically support his conclusion (which in this case isn't even that, it's just an insinuation that's supposed to make people connect their own racist dots).

Jomshof is simply saying that there is a bigger problem with this than we like to admit

Actually, he's doing the exact opposite. He's taking a hugely complex problem with an incalculable number of causes and circumstances and ties it together in a neat little easily explained package. Perfect for confirmation bias, awful for humanity.

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.

So you are saying that it's completely rational and factually accurate to label Europe as a racist and fascist continent? That a significant enough number of European people are racist that they all need to be closely monitored and kept in check?

 

[awesomeClaw]

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?

Right or wrong, he's not a credible source of information due to having a vested interest in sowing dissent. Particularly here by shaping a narrative that is beneficial to his cause. Even if he reports every digit correctly that does not automatically support his conclusion (which in this case isn't even that, it's just an insinuation that's supposed to make people connect their own racist dots).

Jomshof is simply saying that there is a bigger problem with this than we like to admit

Actually, he's doing the exact opposite. He's taking a hugely complex problem with an incalculable number of causes and circumstances and ties it together in a neat little easily explained package. Perfect for confirmation bias, awful for humanity.

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.

So you are saying that it's completely rational and factually accurate to label Europe as a racist and fascist continent? That a significant enough number of European people are racist that they all need to be closely monitored and kept in check?

Regarding the first - You insinuated that Jomshof was lying, at least that was what I interpertated it as. Feel free to disagree with his conclusions.

How complex is this problem really? There are Islamists, who are bad, and there are a lot of them. Then there are regular, liberal muslims who are fighting the islamists, which(regular muslims) are good and nice and awesome. We should support the latter. It seems you want to make the problem more complex than it is.

It would not be correct to label Europe as a fascist or racist continent. I have not labeled Islam as violent or islamist.

It would, however, be correct to say that Europa has a problem with racist/fascist organisations, and that those organisations need to be monitored, AND that those in the risk-zone for those organisations need to be monitored.

It would also be correct to claim Islam has a problem with Islamism, and that islamists(75% of egyptians, don't forget) need to be monitored, AND that those in the risk-zone for islamism also need to be monitored.

 

[HerbertWard]

snip

I don't even know where to start here.

Because your point seems to boil down to "I'm not going to say they asked for it, but they kinda asked for it".

I'm not going to adress that, it's late, I need to go to bed, so I'm going to just post those one quickly, about those "statements" that you find "intersting" and that I find downright libellous.
For the "homophobic" bit :

His Eminence vingt-trois has three daddy
"The father","the son","the holy ghost"
André vingt-trois is the archbishop of Paris, I'll let you have a wild guess at his position on same sex marriage, that was recently legalise over here.

As for the "racist" bit, here are some covers about the Le Pen family, head of the Front National, the actual xenophobic and racist bit of France :
http://www.tendanceouest.com/photos/galeries/63302/76.jpg
Le Pen, the candidate that looks like you

antisemit killing of Toulouse "A point of detail of the campaign"
( referring the infamous quote of Le Pen senior about gas chamber being a point of detail of history )

Lampedusa, the Mediterranea ... applying the Front National's program

The hell if I know where the "sexist" bit come from, but considering that americans seems to wear reality distording glasses, I'm not going to try.

And also, religion is not a race. Being white does not allow you to deflect bullets ( as proven on the 7 ). Mustapha Murrad, corrector of Charlie Hebdo, had just obtained the french nationality before being slaughter with the rest of the redaction. But I guess he was some kind of race traitor internalizing the racism of that newspaper. Charlie Hebdo is a plural left anti-clerical newspaper. Bernard Marris had more knowledge about sociology and economy in his little finger than wannabe sociologist american bloggers who thinks reading tumblr is the equivalent of having a phd on any given subject.

And "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" is a bullshit statement being used to excuse disgusting behaviour by the offended bullies. I'm sure those two assholes with their consequential kalashnikovs and consequential bullets were definitely on that wave length. They sure showed them.

"... of speech is not freedom from consequences"

Now I'm off to bed, good night.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Lol at the people pretending Islam is a race. It really is hilarious.

I'm not about to start deciphering whether or not Frace's renowned satirists were racist or not, I've not doubt most western media can spin anything that isn't flat out supporting their world view as racist, so I ain't gonna look for a summary from them either. And you know what? It doesn't matter.

Fact of the matter is, some political satirists who talked shit about everyone, got attacked by some extremists. After years of threats they didn't back down either. As on of them previously said, "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees". It takes strength of character to do that, especially when confronted with a group who actually do make god on their death threats.

 

[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.

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.

I agree with you. Murder should never be the response to someone just saying what they want.

This is something you guys just ARE NOT GETTING about what I am saying. Look, 100%, the murder of Charlie Hebdo staff was a complete inappropriate response on the part of a few. In an IDEAL world, it is something that SHOULD NEVER, EVER HAPPEN! I believe and agree with that, 100%. The part you all keep missing is that we do not leave in an ideal world. We live in reality, and the reality is that human beings can do some fucked-up things sometimes in response to silly shit. When you say or do something to someone else, you need to be thinking REALITY, the fucked-up shit people may do in response, not the IDEAL, the wonderful enlightened way to properly respond. You need to be thinking about how your actions may affect and the kind of response it may elicit from another HUMAN BEING, not the idealized robot we wished all human beings would be. This is the basis of my statement why I'm not surprised at the response Charlie Hebdo received given what I've been learning of the publication. Do I agree with it? HELL NO! Do I feel it is justified? HELL NO! Do I think the perpetrators should be brought to justice? HELL YES!

Whether you are on the Internet, in a multiplayer game, or face-to-face with another person, you need to be thinking of that person's possible responses as a real human being and be prepared to deal with that response, and you need to be thinking of the REALITY, not the IDEAL.

BTW, consequences does not mean just bad stuff happening. It also means good stuff. In the sense that I have been trying to use it (and clearly failing given the responses I'm getting) is that it is simply the result of an action, nothing more. It may be good; it may be bad. That is a subjective judgement that is made by the bearer of the consequences of such actions in the aftermath.

And to directly address your contrived example at the end, if I knew ahead of time (and believe me, I am the type of person who would make all efforts to do so) that stating my opinion on this site would result in me being permabanned, fired from my job, kicked out of my house, and beaten 24/7, then I would not have joined this site in the first place such to entreat the possibility of such a consequence in response to such an action. You see how that's taking personal responsibility? Doesn't take a thought police or anything else. It just takes me making a decision based on the reality that is before me. But further, it takes me thinking far enough ahead to see the total chain of causal outcomes and to choose an appropriate action.

Now, let's turn that around. Supposed I felt it was wrong of the Escapist to have such a policy, and, as a statement of protest, I post my opinion on the Escapist and mention the hypothesized atrocities as being wrong and unethical. But, I would have to do so knowing that the consequences for the actions that I am about to take would be the aforementioned set of bad responses (bad for me, that is). However, and this is the important part, as a means of calling attention to such atrocities in the hope to gain sympathetic support to force the Escapist to change such a policy, I accept the consequences of those actions knowingly. I perform that action knowing that all the negative consequences mentioned will be exactly what will happen, but I perform the action anyway as a means of martyred protest. This is how a true freedom fighter behaves. They don't run from the consequences; they accept them, knowingly, willingly, but they do so in the hopes that their suffering will garner sympathy to bring about change.

Now, clearly, this in not what the staff at Charlie Hebdo desired, to be martyrs. They wanted to give criticism to an extremist segment that clearly has been going beyond the pale. That's all well and good. However, knowing how such a group operates and what their potential responses may be, one would think that a responsible adult whose thinking is reasonably grounded in the realities of human behavior would be more careful in crafting their criticism such to avoid causing troublesome responses. At the very least, be prepared for potential trouble, cause you know it's likely. You know who and what you are dealing with. It's not a surprise. If you're going to characterize extremists in such a horrid manner, be at least expectant of the very horrid behavior of which you accuse them. Don't just sit there in your intellectual bubble and think you're somehow immune to being punched by reality.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

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.

To be fair, Charlie Hebdo trashes the Catholic faith just as much. They don't pull their punches no matter who or what it is they target.

 

[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).

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.

Here's the problem though, killing someone because of racy pictures is not a resonable response. You don't see Christians going around mowing down people for being mocked, no matter how vicious that mocking is. These people knew the risks when it came to printing these cartoons, they knew some asshat religious extremist might try and kill them one day. You know why they kept doing it? Because they knew that a person shouldn't be killed based on something as trivial as fucking political cartoons. Hell, one of the guys that were killed commented on this saying they had very little to lose outside of their life so he would keep doing it. There is no "they should have known better". They did know better but made a political statement by upholding the freedom of speech and they saw it as worth the risk to do so. What's next, you going to say the people that were killed by the Mexican Cartels for mocking them were "asking for it"? By cowering in fear over your words, you're doing exactly what these assholes want.

I'll respond as I have responded to others here. I agree with you 100%. Killing someone over some pictures or words said is not a reasonable response. In an ideal world with ideal human beings evincing ideal behavior, this sort of thing would NEVER HAPPEN. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. We live in the real world, and human beings do some fucked-up shit over the silliest things. What we have to be able to do is have knowledge of that and account for it in our actions. We have to be prepared and accepting of the consequences of actions in the real world.

Every one seems to keep thinking I'm saying that Charlie Hebdo were asking for it. That is not the sentiment I wished to convey, but it is clearly the one that has come across (the ideal of what I think I'm saying versus the reality of what people are hearing me say). What I am saying is that because the Universe is causal and human beings are what they are, people need to be more careful in how they go about with their interactions and criticisms. As I mentioned in a contrived example, if you go into the den of a black gang in Compton and shout "I hate all you n---gers, because you're all useless trash, and I think you should just die and stop being a burden on the country", then regardless if the criticism is justified or not, the consequence for taking such an action would be a lot of high-velocity metal being launched in your general direction. It's just not a smart thing to do because...human beings. Life doesn't happen in a vacuum. There is causation for everything that happens (not, this is not any sort of justification, only a statement that A begot B).

There are good ways and bad ways of criticizing others, just as there are good ways and bad ways of responding to such criticism. My basic thesis is the extremists choose a bad way to respond to criticize. However, by the same token, Charlie Hebdo seems to have gone about a bad way of criticizing. The end result is conflict, pain, and death. Actions have consequences, period. It is not a judgement of good or bad. Consequences does not always mean bad things. It is simply a statement that reality is what it is, and we need to govern ourselves more appropriately to account for that reality. In my opinion, neither Charlie Hebdo nor the extremists did such.

 

[Olas]

The only good muslim is an atheist former muslim.
Same goes for every religion.

You know, I would like to point out that atheists (Which frankly I borderline am) are not perfect human beings above horrible acts. I really wish people would stop acting like everything would be better if everyone was an atheist. We'd find other reasons to be murderers.

Of course, but you have to agree that having a mandate from heaven takes a lot of the guilt and responsibility off. If you gun down a few black people because you think they are inferior...its on you. And in time, you might be convinced of your erroneous ways.

If you gun down a few cartoonists because god has decreed it so...its kinda hard to convince you of anything else. How does one argue with god?

You could also be convinced NOT to murder someone because it's against your religion. Religion can promote both violence and peace, and a lot more that I've heard of promote peace. Of course peace doesn't make the news very often.

Wouldnt you rather be convinced NOT to murder someone because its the right thing to do? Because your rationality and your conscience prevents you to do such acts?

It's not like the two are mutually exclusive. You can believe murder is wrong because it's part of your religion's creed, and also understand why from a rational perspective. I doubt most people would do something for their religion that goes completely against their better instinct. If they did I'd call that fundamentalism, which it seems is the real problem.

And there you go again. Religion promoting peace, like religion invented peace and has a monopoly on it. You seriously believe we can thank religion for peace?

I've never heard someone claim their religion has a monopoly on peace. All I'm saying is many religions promote it, which seems to be something many atheists ignore when blaming things like 9/11 on the very CONCEPT of religion.

Believe it or not religion used to be the de-facto basis for morality for most people, and what better deterrent could there be for immoral behavior than an all powerful deity who sees you at all times and will punish or reward you eternally based on your actions.

Seeing as said all powerful deity can also be used as an excuse to gun down unarmed elderly people I'm not sure a deity is a good moral compass. People used to believe the earth was flat too. So what? Hopefully we have evolved somewhat. Ethics and morality is born in society, not in religion.

It can be born in both, it can also be extinguished in both. I'm not arguing that basing a moral code in religious beliefs is ideal, but I would say that it's usually better than living without any moral code at all, or one based on egoism. I wouldn't say it's safe to assume that without religious principles people will automatically adopt new, better ones on their own. I guess my point is I'm in favor of anything that promotes good behavior, even if I don't necessarily believe in it myself.

 

[chikusho]

Regarding the first - You insinuated that Jomshof was lying, at least that was what I interpertated it as. Feel free to disagree with his conclusions.

I consider misappropriation of facts to be a form of lying, so yeah.

How complex is this problem really? There are Islamists, who are bad, and there are a lot of them. Then there are regular, liberal muslims who are fighting the islamists, which(regular muslims) are good and nice and awesome. We should support the latter. It seems you want to make the problem more complex than it is.

It's... infinitely more complex than that? Like, by astronomical margins.

It would not be correct to label Europe as a fascist or racist continent. I have not labeled Islam as violent or islamist.

That's something the Sweden Democrats, Jomshof included, is regularly doing though.

It would also be correct to claim Islam has a problem with Islamism, and that islamists(75% of egyptians, don't forget) need to be monitored, AND that those in the risk-zone for islamism also need to be monitored.

Islam doesn't have a problem with islamist extremism. The world has a problem with islamist extremism. Muslims can't be held responsible for the actions of lunatics any more than college students can be held responsible for school massacres.

Also, some quick googling proved those numbers to be incorrect. True, 47.5% of the population voted in the 2014 election. But 96.91 percent of those votes were for a candidate that ran as an independent, and also had a large part in ousting the last President. He ran against a single opponent representing the Egyptian Popular Current.

So, factual incorrectness aside, I'll have to assume that he's referring to the 2012 election. Only, this election also only had a turnout of around 50%, where 25% of the votes went to the Muslim Brotherhood candidate , and 24 to an independent in the first round of voting. Not to mention the fact that this was the first ever election in the country, and the people might as well have been voting for someone they considered to be a political martyr or a charismatic leader who stepped in just after the end of a dictatorship, just as much as a representative for the Muslim Brotherhood. So, to be making sweeping generalizations about Islam and Islamists from the situation in Egypt is incredibly disingenuous.

 

[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.

Except that "article" is slanderous shit written by a vile piece of crap.
Charlie bashes everyone. You can cherry-pick a dozen cartoons about Islam because over decades, in a weekly that's mostly covered with cartoons, it's easy. What you don't see is the hundreds of cartoons against the Church, the military or the far right. Having cartoons of the Pope sodomising kids is quite abhorrent to Catholics, and there have been some extreme ones in France over the years. They campaigned to get the far-right National Front banned, to get rid of it once and for all (I doubt it would've been legal). Yet none of these people actually assaulted them.
THEY HAD BEEN DOING THIS SHIT TO EVERYONE IN FRANCE FOR DECADES AND NO ONE KILLED THEM. Because that's how you roll in a civilized country.
Heck, they actually got sued for some Mohammed cartoons. And won of course. Still, goes to show some Muslims were offended but not insane enough to resort to killing.
Charb is on record saying he wasn't really worried much because there are millions of Muslims in France and a few hundreds extremist fools.

Want the supreme irony? Turns out they were growing worried about the current trends in France and the rise of National Front, and wanted to address it in their next issue - basically, they were discussing how to make fun of racist bigots when they were executed by fucking scum.

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"?

Enjoy your report, mass-murder apologist.

Now, please I don't want to be taken the wrong way, but this is just the hypocrisy of Western civilization. If those dudes were doing comics about black people or Jews, EVERYBODY would be on their asses, calling them controversial, classless and whatnot. But, hating and mocking Muslims has AMERICA'S SEAL OF APPROVAL because Muslims = Terrorists = Bad = Need to go away. Now several cans of worms are opened.

Fucking bad for you, they're French, not Americans. And they bashed Israel and Jews more than Muslims over the years.

Getting a bit tired of repeating this so I'll just compress it to this: human beings do some fucked-up shit for fucked-up reasons. When you do or say something about someone else, you just need to be accounting for that simple fact and be prepared for their responses. It would be ideal to not have people murdering each other over a bit of criticism, but the reality is that there are people who do. You just need to be careful.

Sorry, I know that's compressed and probably doesn't say what I really mean in a good way, but I'm kind of tired of having to clarify myself repeatedly.

 

[Insanityblues]

Jacob Canfield seems to equate murder with criticism... F**k you Jacob.

 

[The Bucket]

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.

Except that "article" is slanderous shit written by a vile piece of crap.
Charlie bashes everyone. You can cherry-pick a dozen cartoons about Islam because over decades, in a weekly that's mostly covered with cartoons, it's easy. What you don't see is the hundreds of cartoons against the Church, the military or the far right. Having cartoons of the Pope sodomising kids is quite abhorrent to Catholics, and there have been some extreme ones in France over the years. They campaigned to get the far-right National Front banned, to get rid of it once and for all (I doubt it would've been legal). Yet none of these people actually assaulted them.
THEY HAD BEEN DOING THIS SHIT TO EVERYONE IN FRANCE FOR DECADES AND NO ONE KILLED THEM. Because that's how you roll in a civilized country.
Heck, they actually got sued for some Mohammed cartoons. And won of course. Still, goes to show some Muslims were offended but not insane enough to resort to killing.
Charb is on record saying he wasn't really worried much because there are millions of Muslims in France and a few hundreds extremist fools.

Want the supreme irony? Turns out they were growing worried about the current trends in France and the rise of National Front, and wanted to address it in their next issue - basically, they were discussing how to make fun of racist bigots when they were executed by fucking scum.

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"?

Enjoy your report, mass-murder apologist.

Now, please I don't want to be taken the wrong way, but this is just the hypocrisy of Western civilization. If those dudes were doing comics about black people or Jews, EVERYBODY would be on their asses, calling them controversial, classless and whatnot. But, hating and mocking Muslims has AMERICA'S SEAL OF APPROVAL because Muslims = Terrorists = Bad = Need to go away. Now several cans of worms are opened.

Fucking bad for you, they're French, not Americans. And they bashed Israel and Jews more than Muslims over the years.

Getting a bit tired of repeating this so I'll just compress it to this: human beings do some fucked-up shit for fucked-up reasons. When you do or say something about someone else, you just need to be accounting for that simple fact and be prepared for their responses. It would be ideal to not have people murdering each other over a bit of criticism, but the reality is that there are people who do. You just need to be careful.

Sorry, I know that's compressed and probably doesn't say what I really mean in a good way, but I'm kind of tired of having to clarify myself repeatedly.

I apologize if I am misinterpreting you now, I know how frustrating it can be to convey nuanced meaning over the internet, but I dont quite get what you mean by be prepared for their responses. They had significant security in place in their building, but the perpetrators were extremely organized and fanatical. If you mean they should have not said anything in the first place, at the risk of sounding dramatic, that'd be letting the extremists win. The onus wasn't on them to placate murderers. nobody should censor themselves to avoid getting killed. They were prepared for any legal, social or political backlash from what they created, doing anything beyond that isnt helping the problem

 

[This Place is DEAD]

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.

Again: I don't care for universal laws. I care for the laws the people of France gave themselves. Charlie Hebdo operated inside those laws. They were taken to court over their satire and won most cases. So, whoever is offended by their stuff can try the legal way to silence them. And that is the only way. If they break the law, they are punished. By the governmental authorities. Not by the offended themselves, mind you. That would be barbarism, revenge, an eye for an eye. Exactly the opposite of the European justice principles.

So basically, if you like Madonna, and I knew that, I would have to be careful what I say about her around you, right? And if you catch me making a disgusting remark about her, you should be allowed to punch me in the face and tell me about some universal law that grants you the right to do so afterwards? That I should have watched my mouth in the first place? Governed myself accordingly? That you gave me a totally understandable response?

If we went to the police with that story, who do you think would stay there and who would go free?

Not to punch everybody that annoys us in the face is an integral part of being a human. I'd rather try to be human than follow universal laws. And they are certainly no excuse for any kind of violence.