Je Suis Charlie

[someonehairy-ish]

"Ours is a religion of peace! If you say otherwise, we'll fucking murder you!"

Its times like these I really wish religion would just disappear.

Your prophet did not to ride to heaven on a fucking winged horse. Your messiah was not resurrected after three days. There was no exodus, no virgin birth, no burning bush, no garden of Eden, no talking snake. There are no gods, no miracles, and there is no afterlife. These are all delusions, and if you're willing to kill for them, please begin with yourself.

That is all.

 

[geizr]

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

It's not that they shouldn't have said anything. No group should be beyond criticism. However, the unfortunately reality is that we sometimes have to be careful regarding what we're getting ourselves into when we say things. Should we let terrorists win and have their way? HELL NO! But, we do need to be aware of when we're poking into the hornets' nest, and cognizant of our audience and the circumstances.

An immediate example would be my own posting so far in this thread. I knew my opinion would likely draw fire and raise a shit-storm. Knowing this, I've tried to be very careful in my approach to maintain to a level of civil discourse and not turn the thread into screaming match. But part of that is also having some knowledge of the group with which I'm dealing. There are certain things which I can say and certain things which I can't, not without severe repercussions the likes of which I'm not willing to deal. There's a particular approach I need to take such to not cause extreme offense, undue accusation, encourage hostility, or otherwise just "rustle jimmies", not if I want to keep things on the civilized level. I've made a number of criticisms here on the Escapist, sometimes well-versed, sometimes not so well-versed. I've tried to evolve my discourse over the years that I've posted on the Escapist to be less and less inflammatory, as I have sometimes done in the past, in recognition that it serves no good purpose to converse with others on the Escapist in a manner that is condescending, derogatory, insulting, or sardonically mocking. One of the reasons I've been exhausting with this thread is that I spend a lot of time writing my posts, thinking upon my opinion, couching my words carefully, reviewing and proofing my post before I submit it, all in an evolving effort to maintain civil discourse. I present my opinion, but I try to present it in a manner so as not to be causing feuding conflict or flame wars.

There are many ideals that we wish everyone would adhere to. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world because human beings are imperfect creatures. My only real point is that we need to govern ourselves with some account for the realistic even as we strive to achieve the idealistic. That includes realizing that bad reactions are likely from certain things that we do, and thus, we need to have more care in how we go about it. If one broaches murderous, Islamic extremists, one needs to be accounting for murderous, Islamic extremists to behave as murderous, Islamic extremists.

As for these murderous, Islamic extremists, there's nothing to do for it but find them, jail them, try them, and mete out whatever punishment is deemed appropriate to send the message that such behavior as they have evinced is inappropriate and not to be tolerated, regardless of the perceived slight over a few words in a publication. If they took offense, there were other far better, more civilized ways to approach the issue and register complaint or defense. However, at the same time, it is also my opinion that Charlie Hebdo may have poked the hornets' nest in a manner that may not have been the smartest approach.

 

[jackpipsam]

Satire has every right to exist.
Here in Australia the Islamic community is constantly demanding that any kind of comedy show with a slight reference to their religion get removed because they're "offended".

Being offended doesn't make anyone right.
Now more than ever we need to stand by our free speech, we cannot let these people destroy our way of life.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

[

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.

I am glad we are in agreement.

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.

Is that what you're saying? That's not a good defense for anything. Your basically saying we shouldn't do anything that goes against fear or violence because people are fearful and violent. With that kind of logic, we shouldn't have laws because they will always be broken, and we shouldn't have governments because they will always fall.

And on your point of an Ideal world, shouldn't we be trying to reach for that? Isn't that something we'd want? Why would we give it up just because some people are willing to shoot others because they don't like this Ideal world?

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.

Well how are you going to change the reality of the world if you don't even try? Charlie Hebdo might have been doing it the wrong way, but they where trying to point out the craziness in every extremist group and in every religion. That at least counts for something; they where trying to change the reality of these extremists by having a laugh at them. It might not change their opinion, but it would certainly change anyone willing to change, or at least listen and laugh along. You can't stop trying to change reality, just because someone will shoot you if you try. If people didn't change reality, blacks would still be lynched and segregated in the south, homosexuals and transexuals would be put in institutions, women would still be stuck as housewives, and Christianity would be enforcing blue laws all over the Christian World.

You might be fine with a Reality where people should expect to get hurt for making fun of Religion, but I do not.

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.

Well, the Reality is that most of the time, people will either ignore you, insult you back or call the authorities (Or in case of the internet, hack you). Only Nut Jobs would murder you for an insult. Which is what these two terrorists are; Nut Jobs.

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 I'll repeat, the Consequence for drawing cartoons should not be murder, attempted murder, bombings and death threats. But this is apparently the reality we have to live with, otherwise we'll all die.

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?

So instead of fighting injustice, you'd simply never rattle the cage? That might be taking personal responsibility, but it's also taking the easy way out, if you ask me. Instead of saying "Hey, it's not fair I can't voice my opinion without my life being destroyed", you would simply ignore the question all together. I hate to say this, but that's cowardly...

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.

That would be very brave and I would fully support you and your move.

Meanwhile, two French Muslims murder 11 Satirical Cartoonists and Journalists and 1 Cop who was begging for mercy, and are currently hiding and running away from French Authorities. Those two seem to be running from their consequences, and they certainly seem to be avoiding the reality that murder is illegal and that killing civilians that did nothing to them will only garner hatred for Islam in general.

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.

It's not like there weren't cops there, they just couldn't actually deal with the threat. And no, I wouldn't call the 12 People who died at Charlie's Martyrs. I am glad the Reality didn't stop them either, because then there would be one less voice in dealing with Extremism from everywhere, not just Islam. I am also glad that Reality will not stop them anyways as they will continue doing what they do. We need more people like Charlie Hedbo, and the South Park crew, to just look at Reality, point at it with the most absurd get-up on and say "Look at how ridiculous this is", and not be intimidated by the Reality police because they might die for it. We should not, and cannot, bow down to reality when the reality of the situation sucks, or else nothing will ever change!

 

[geizr]

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.

I'm not sure where you're getting that I'm advocating eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Goodness, that would set civilization back a couple thousand years or more. Nor am I saying that French are not able to apply their own law. In fact, I agree with you, 100%, that if these extremists felt offense, then they should have pursued proper legal channels to redress their grievances. 100%, they should be found, tried, and appropriately punished for their crime of murder, as it was a completely inappropriate response to satirical criticism.

What I am trying to say is that, regardless of any law of the land, human beings will react and behave as human beings do. We have gotten better, as a whole, but there are still some definite rough areas. In dealing with other human beings, we have to be cognizant and aware of the affects of our actions.

Let's take your example with Madonna. Suppose it was as you said that I liked Madonna (which I actually do like some of her earlier stuff, but I haven't really paid attention to her latest stuff); let's suppose I was an absolute ardent fanatic of Madonna, you that kind of crazy fanatic that you hear tell about. And let's suppose also that you knew all this about me. Now, would you think it okay to take every opportunity to diss Madonna and harass me for my fanaticism of Madonna in front of me? Would it be okay to be going out of your way to bitterly mock and harass my love of Madonna in a public venue with me in sight to make sure that I know it is you doing it? Do you think it okay to take every opportunity in public venue to sardonically comment with contemptuous condescension regarding my love of Madonna? Would such actions really be the sort of thing that would make me change my mind about my fanaticism for Madonna, or just piss me off and make me want to punch you in the face? And there would be the other thing. If you also knew that I was the hot-tempered, lacking in self-control and those very likely to just haul-out and hit you, would you think it smart to continue in such a manner? Would it really be a surprise, given all this, that I did finally just beat the shit out of you? While my response would in no way be justified, and I should be properly punished for such an extreme response over some asshole being a total jerk, by the same token, my nature and potential response were not unknown variables. There may have been a better way that you could have criticized my fanaticism of Madonna such to sway my opinion without being so much a jerk about it.

Unfortunately, human beings will be human beings. They will not always abide the letter of the law; they will not always pursue the more civil course. We strive for the ideal, but we must always keep reality forward in our minds.

 

[webkilla]

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.

Its offending the good people of that religion? Because... people who do not have that religion is doing things that they're not allowed?

Why aren't we then pissed that muslims do not take sunday off? You know, observing the sabbath? Or worship Jesus Christ.

Hell, you're assuming that non-muslims doing prophet pics offends muslims. Do you even have any kind of statistics to prove that? Oh sure, there were riots back when the danish cartoons were cooked up, but that could just as easily be attributed to pissed off imams inciting those riots.

So no. Hell, consider the precedent it sets: Will we get hindus next who are offended that the west isn't drawing red dots on our foreheads and that we eat cows?

 

[Lunar Templar]

snipped

Sunday off ...

HA!! That's a nice wish.

Anyway, you go right on a head and keep poking that bear in the hopes the bear gets over being poked, see how long it takes before the bear turns around and mauls the guy with the stick again.

I'll make sure to have the popcorn and a comfy chair ready when it happens again though, cause next time. I'm laughing at the victims.

 

[geizr]

[

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.

I am glad we are in agreement.

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.

Is that what you're saying? That's not a good defense for anything. Your basically saying we shouldn't do anything that goes against fear or violence because people are fearful and violent. With that kind of logic, we shouldn't have laws because they will always be broken, and we shouldn't have governments because they will always fall.

And on your point of an Ideal world, shouldn't we be trying to reach for that? Isn't that something we'd want? Why would we give it up just because some people are willing to shoot others because they don't like this Ideal world?

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.

Well how are you going to change the reality of the world if you don't even try? Charlie Hebdo might have been doing it the wrong way, but they where trying to point out the craziness in every extremist group and in every religion. That at least counts for something; they where trying to change the reality of these extremists by having a laugh at them. It might not change their opinion, but it would certainly change anyone willing to change, or at least listen and laugh along. You can't stop trying to change reality, just because someone will shoot you if you try. If people didn't change reality, blacks would still be lynched and segregated in the south, homosexuals and transexuals would be put in institutions, women would still be stuck as housewives, and Christianity would be enforcing blue laws all over the Christian World.

You might be fine with a Reality where people should expect to get hurt for making fun of Religion, but I do not.

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.

Well, the Reality is that most of the time, people will either ignore you, insult you back or call the authorities (Or in case of the internet, hack you). Only Nut Jobs would murder you for an insult. Which is what these two terrorists are; Nut Jobs.

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 I'll repeat, the Consequence for drawing cartoons should not be murder, attempted murder, bombings and death threats. But this is apparently the reality we have to live with, otherwise we'll all die.

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?

So instead of fighting injustice, you'd simply never rattle the cage? That might be taking personal responsibility, but it's also taking the easy way out, if you ask me. Instead of saying "Hey, it's not fair I can't voice my opinion without my life being destroyed", you would simply ignore the question all together. I hate to say this, but that's cowardly...

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.

That would be very brave and I would fully support you and your move.

Meanwhile, two French Muslims murder 11 Satirical Cartoonists and Journalists and 1 Cop who was begging for mercy, and are currently hiding and running away from French Authorities. Those two seem to be running from their consequences, and they certainly seem to be avoiding the reality that murder is illegal and that killing civilians that did nothing to them will only garner hatred for Islam in general.

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.

It's not like there weren't cops there, they just couldn't actually deal with the threat. And no, I wouldn't call the 12 People who died at Charlie's Martyrs. I am glad the Reality didn't stop them either, because then there would be one less voice in dealing with Extremism from everywhere, not just Islam. I am also glad that Reality will not stop them anyways as they will continue doing what they do. We need more people like Charlie Hedbo, and the South Park crew, to just look at Reality, point at it with the most absurd get-up on and say "Look at how ridiculous this is", and not be intimidated by the Reality police because they might die for it. We should not, and cannot, bow down to reality when the reality of the situation sucks, or else nothing will ever change!

It's late, and I feel I've already addressed what you are saying in several other posts. However, something I'm noticing of this post you made, apparently my opinion is just wrong on every possible front to you regardless of how I may try to clarify. Firstly, you put words in my mouth from the very start. Then you criticize me as being cowardly about not wanting to change injustice. Then when I give you an explicit example of changing injustice, in the very same post, mind you, you're apparently unhappy with that also. Accepting reality and accounting for it is not the same as being happy or comfortable with it. I never said such a thing, and I have no idea how you even jumped to that conclusion of my personality. I never said we should not strive for the ideal; in fact, in my later posts in this thread, I say precisely that we should strive for the ideal. However, we can not ignore that reality is what it is, regardless of the ideals that we may currently hold. Once you accept reality for what it is, then you also knowingly accept the consequences, that includes knowingly risking your life to change what you perceive as wrong. That includes knowingly poking the hornets' nest knowing that you may get stung. I thought I was making that clear, but apparently not. Or you're just in an emotional state right now that nothing I say could possibly considered valid. If the latter is the case, then, honestly, I really don't see any reason to continue discussion with you.

Here's a perfect example of what I mean regarding ideal versus reality: it would be nice if people didn't treat each other like such jerks on the Internet and in online games. Personally, I try to hold to that ideal myself. I don't always succeed, but I try. The reality, however, is that people are jerks on the Internet and in online games, to a high degree. Multiple times I have made statements, particularly here on the Escapist, that people DO need to be more pleasant to each other in such venues precisely because there is another human being on the other side of the screen. I'm often rewarded with dismissal, derision, or just the general "Fuck you, nerd!" kind of sentiment, not here on the Escapist, but in some of the online gaming circles I've ventured in. I know that's going to happen. I know that that is a reality of being on the Internet and in online games. I'm not happy about it, but I accept it and govern my own behavior in accord, even as I attempt to make some small ripples of change in the nature of human interaction online. However, there are realms where my actions would clearly not be well received at all (certain areas of 4chan is a possibility), and if I'm not willing to accept the consequences delving into such an area, then I've got no business going there.

To go even further, there was a time I truly was a complete jerk in an online game, specifically Warhammer: Age of Reckoning. I played a witch elf named Spici. I was very mean, vicious, and condescending to a lot of other players. I made the game generally unenjoyable for a lot of people. However, I got called out on it, and after I reflected upon my behavior, I realized that I was making things miserable for others. My response was a formal apology to the entire server and a major effort to be a better, more communal player. It was a bit rough at first, because people remembered what I did; however, as time passed, I improved my own behavior, and people were more accepting of me. It was this experience, specifically, that lead me to understand that the rules of etiquette in human interaction are still quite applicable even online because there is another human being on the other side of the screen.

Now that's an ideal case, and it would be nice if everyone followed the ideal case. It would be nice if every griefer, stream sniper, swatter, and whatever other jerk-ward would have the epiphany of realization just how much their actions hurt others. However, as we all know, some, possibly all, of them don't. Thus, we who try to follow the ideal still need to be accounting and prepared for those that are more contemptuous of that ideal.

We all make choices, and those choices have consequences; we should make our choices knowingly and with knowing acceptance of the resultant possibilities for our actions, good, bad, or otherwise. Those extremists are not escaping the consequences of their actions; they're already suffering the beginnings of those consequences from the very fact that they are running, and, if justice be served, they will face the full reaping of those consequences in the near future.

 

[Sanderpower]

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.

On the contrary, its EXACTLY what we need. The thing is, even if Charlie Hebdo was the most racist, xenophobic assholes on the planet...they STILL shouldnt be shot for their opinions. Thats the values of western society. This quote springs to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Thats western society. If you dont like it...I'm tempted to quote South Park...but I'll refrain.

Am I the only one seeing the danger in de-humanizing the people who performed this heinous attack? Calling their minds barren because their view of the world does not correlate with our own is the first step on the road of getting into the same mindset that these murderers no doubt had. A mindset in which the other person isn't as much a human being as I am, because they do not think like I do.

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.

The thing is that you're very thought process is almost identical to that of evangelists. Religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so attacking it constantly isn't going to stop violence or solve problems, it's just going to increase tensions and cause more hatred. What you want is essentially an Atheist Crusade. What makes you any different from Evangelists who saying how their religion is the truth and who attack anybody who holds different beliefs from them?

I'm an atheist, I find the concept of believing in a God in this day and age outdated. But I'm not going to go around and mock and insult people. They have a right to believe what they want to believe. I'm also aware of how religious texts have had great influence on the laws and values of western culture, but that's a whole other topic.

Also you're wrong again that it was just purely religion that could cause this. This type of violence could also be caused by ethnicity, politics, race, nationality, and pretty much anything that gives a group a label and is important to their identity. It just so happens that in this day and age Islam extremism is the source of a lot of conflicts. But I wouldn't be surprised in another century or two that people aren't being bombed because they insulted some nation in a comic.

 

[tzimize]

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.

If my claim was that we would have a perfect world without religion I would agree with you. Its not. People would still do bad things. But they would probably do bad things just a little less. If this happened once, I could agree with you. But its not like its the first time in recent memory people have jihaded their way through civilians. It is a big problem for Islam. There are not many christian terrorists or hindu terrorist. If there were equal amounts of terroists as there are people of a specific religion, it would clearly be a problem with people. That is not the case, and it should follow that the problem is with the religion itself.

Personally I think ALL religion is bad. Its not the reason for every wrongdoing on earth, but it contributes a fair share of hate, discrimination and suppression. It contributes nothing good that we would not have without it.

 

[tzimize]

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.

On the contrary, its EXACTLY what we need. The thing is, even if Charlie Hebdo was the most racist, xenophobic assholes on the planet...they STILL shouldnt be shot for their opinions. Thats the values of western society. This quote springs to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Thats western society. If you dont like it...I'm tempted to quote South Park...but I'll refrain.

Am I the only one seeing the danger in de-humanizing the people who performed this heinous attack? Calling their minds barren because their view of the world does not correlate with our own is the first step on the road of getting into the same mindset that these murderers no doubt had. A mindset in which the other person isn't as much a human being as I am, because they do not think like I do.

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.

The thing is that you're very thought process is almost identical to that of evangelists. Religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so attacking it constantly isn't going to stop violence or solve problems, it's just going to increase tensions and cause more hatred. What you want is essentially an Atheist Crusade. What makes you any different from Evangelists who saying how their religion is the truth and who attack anybody who holds different beliefs from them?

I'm an atheist, I find the concept of believing in a God in this day and age outdated. But I'm not going to go around and mock and insult people. They have a right to believe what they want to believe. I'm also aware of how religious texts have had great influence on the laws and values of western culture, but that's a whole other topic.

Also you're wrong again that it was just purely religion that could cause this. This type of violence could also be caused by ethnicity, politics, race, nationality, and pretty much anything that gives a group a label and is important to their identity. It just so happens that in this day and age Islam extremism is the source of a lot of conflicts. But I wouldn't be surprised in another century or two that people aren't being bombed because they insulted some nation in a comic.

That might be, but there is a few very important differences. I do not want to kill people, I just want to be rid of superstition. I would never go out gun in hand to do it. Saying religion is not going anywhere soon is just giving up. Its NOT going anywhere if we dont try to DO something about it. There is a very specific difference in attacking someones beliefs verbally and attacking them with a Kalashnikov, I hope you understand that.

Everyone have the right to believe what they want. People can believe the earth is flat if they prefer, but everyone also have to be prepared to have pointed out the error of their ways. Especially without shooting anyone.

While I agree that there are probably other excuses that could be used to execute something like this, none of them are holy. All the other reasons you mentioned can be discussed, can be educated. Enlightenment is slowly taking care of racism. Its is by NO means perfect yet, but its a lot better. People in general dont think of people of another color as lesser humans anymore. That was the norm, not long ago. Religion is a lot more difficult to shake off, because while you can educate someone about race, its more difficult to educate someone about their deity.

That people will get bombed in the future is pretty certain. However I find it hard to imagine another reason that would be used to bomb people drawing cartoons than religion. Especially in the future. Humanity as a whole is slowly getting more educated, which should make the loophole for doing crazy stuff ever smaller.

 

[Strazdas]

antilgbt hate crimes in russia, fueled by putin's law and backed by the church as one single, massive powerbase

attacks weekly, if not daily, against strangers, their own family members, property, firebombings, driveby shootings, using social media to trick people into what they think is a safe meeting, mob beatings, gangrape, murder, even on camera, proudly posted online, with almost no repercussions (every once in a while the police actually have to look like they're at least trying to do something, but it's always after the fact, and have been employed, many times, to uphold putin's law instead)

people randomly surveyed in the streets of russia either actually believe all the lies, or claim to in order to avoid being destroyed by their society

but nobody's jumping up to claim that the russian orthodox church represents the majority viewpoint of christianity, despite that russia is a pretty big nation

you don't see this stuff posted in all of the news sites, you don't see citywide vigils for the countless deaths and suicides

and then

what if i told you about all of the OTHER nations this is happening in, also in the name of christianity, who spout lines like "not adam and steve" even though none of them even knows what that means, as if somebody fed them lies about western demons even though those people wear their own masks to hide their intent

what if one of those nations was the us

I think an important distinction needs to be made here. What happens in Russia is propagated by russian Officials (putin in particular), upheld by law enforcement, is flat out made illegal and the Orthodox church is merely used as an excuse due to aligning ideals. Majority of people that commit these acts are not doing so in the name of Orthodox church (i never saw even one claim to) but instead they are doing it for other purposes.

In contrast, people that act like in this shooting are doing it excplicitly for their religion with the reasoning that their religion does not allow caricatures like that. They are doing it because of Islam.

That is why i think Islam is blamed in this case whereas Orthodox Church is not being blamed as much in the Russian case.

 

[Wolf Hagen]

I clearly see one thing around here, and that is, that Americans don't get European Satire culture.

There are almost no rules, noone is sacred in their eyes and backing out is something... unheard of around here.
Satire, as long as it for real, pisses off everyone, is allowed to to everyone. One does not have to like it, but heck, thats freedom of speech. But whatever.
Try to imagine European Satire culture as South Park, it's the only thing that even comes close that I know of.

Clearly everyone was shocked around by this kind of terrorism (on Journalists nontheless) and kinda many are now more worried, that right wingers get more followers then ever imaginable, then that satire disappears or that someone shoots them over, or that both sides, Islamic extremists and right wingers in Europe are now really boiling it up everywhere.

Just left to say: Je suis charlie!

 

[Lunar Templar]

snipped

Sunday off ...

HA!! That's a nice wish.

Anyway, you go right on a head and keep poking that bear in the hopes the bear gets over being poked, see how long it takes before the bear turns around and mauls the guy with the stick again.

I'll make sure to have the popcorn and a comfy chair ready when it happens again though, cause next time. I'm laughing at the victims.

In that case, we should stop poking the bear and start shooting it. And let's be honest here, these people aren't some docile bear minding it's own business until some random cartoonist dared to insult their beliefs. These people were already perpetuating violence and other such vile acts, it's only when a few people brave enough to openly mock their bullshit and take a stand against them did they garner their attention and pay dearly for it. What's next, are you going to start laughing at the people killed by the Mexican Cartels for mocking them on Twitter? Protestors in war torn countries killed for protesting human rights violations? After all, they poked the bear and should have known they were going to get mauled.

The difference is. The Protesters died for a cause, and a good one. It's like a Firefighter or Policeman dieing in the line of duty.

Not seeing that with the 'noble cause' with these guys. But then, I already know Terrorists are bad and need to be put down where ever they're found around the world. Which makes me worry about the audience these cartoonists had that they needed to be told.

In any event, and in answer to the question;

"Probably not, to laugh would Imply the deaths of those people invoked joy, and in reality they would, like now, really only invoke indifference."

 

[Casual Shinji]

snip

The thing is, we don't have armies of well orginized, well trained psychopaths creating bloodbaths and beheadings in the name of games while chanting game quotes. If there were, people would be well in their right to maybe look into this, and become suspicious of the belief they follow. Same with Adam Lanza and Anders Breivik. If people like this weren't just crazies handling on their own, but part of a much larger group who hold the same ideals and are going over seas for training so they can put them into practice by force when they return, then that would rightly been seen as a pretty big issue.

The danger is treating this as an isolated incident. It's not. It's part of a growing problem. One that likely won't go away for the next 100 years, and that's me being generous. The fact of the matter is that Islamic values and Western (European) values don't see eye to eye, and yet here we are all thrown together in a big pile. And neither of the two are in a position to leave. Europe made its bed letting in a culture that clashes so highly with their own.

The only thing we can do now is try and get to them while they're very young and make them understand that it's okay to laugh at yourself. That's ultimately the problem here, not the religion itself, but the culture surrounding it where children are being raised to revere the religion as the one true law that may not be tarnished by anyone. Islam needs to go through its own Life of Brian phase.

 

[XDSkyFreak]

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.

I just love how you jumped on the same bandwagon on alot of ignorant young people who think they are smart today jump on. Religion=insanity. Makes me think you have read nothing on religion or indeed any religious texts.

So let's throw out a big question out there: How many of you have read the Bible? How about the Quran? The Baghavad Gita? Because if you haven't, then kindly shove your Religion=bad, you are in no position to say anything. Now me, I've had time. I've followed some smart advice in my life and actually read the books I mentioned. And you know what? Religion is about as far away from bad as you can get. Christianity is a religion built around the central idea of forgivness and moral behaviour. Islam, while different at first, shares so many comon themes with christianity, especially when it comes to the ideea of divine forgiveness and leading a moral life, that makes you wonder why the crusades ever happened when the 2 religions are so similar (except the crusades were anything but wars about religion when you learn your history right ... they were waged for the same reason all wars are waged: greed). See, if you are actually smart and dont want to sound like an "edgy" and "mature" 12 year old and you bother reading before spewing hate, you would know religions at their core have only ever been a force of good and sanity. It's the people who twist religion to their own needs, the fundamentalist asshats, that are the problem. People who, by all rights, stand against everything their religion is about, yet claim to be it's champions.

And you want to know something even funnier? Those idiots who claimed to be defending Islam and Muhammad by killing cartoonists? They would get the death sentence if someone is to follow the Quran to the letter. Because the Quran and Muhammad never stood for hatred, murder, forced conversions, war or indeed anything the so called "Islamists" of today stand for. Even calling these wastes of existence "Islamists" is actually insulting to a religion that stands for morality and forgiveness. So maybe next time, instead of acting like a close minded bigot who didn't bother to even skim the wikipedia article on something he is about to bash, maybe go out there and read a book. You'd be amazed just how much sensible and sage advice can be found in religious texts when you bother to read them, and not base your opinions entirely on the mad ravings and actions of idiots who are actually standing in antithesis to the religion they claim to represent.

 

[Shocksplicer]

"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.

Tell me again what other Religious, political, or stupidity motivated group kills hundreds of people every day in its name?

Christianity. Google "The Lord's Resistance Army. The World isn't as black and white as you'd like to think, mate.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Seriously, fuck Islam. Its own founder, Muhammad, ordered the murders of those that criticised him (Ka'b bin Ashraf, 'Asma' bint Marwan, Abu 'Afak, and many more) and those guys are simply doing what their so-called "prophet" ordered to do in his book: take him as a role model.

 

[awesomeClaw]

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.

He is not misappropriating the facts, though he may have made a mistake in reading them.

I too can google, and if we wikipedia the 2011-2012 parliamentary election, we can see the following statistics - 36,3% voted on the muslim brotherhood, and 28,8% voted on the salafist islamists. Now that is not exactly what Jomshof said - BUT, when the parties were given seats in the parliament, the Muslim Brotherhood got 48%(!) of the seats, and the salafists got 28%. That's probably what Jomshof was referring to. ( If you want to check on your own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_parliamentary_election,_2011%E2%80%9312 )

Even if he made a small mistake in qouting these statistics, 36% + 28% is more than enough for a majority. Regarding the rest of the world, I'll just leave this here: http://fof.se/tidning/2013/7/artikel/asikter-i-den-muslimska-varlden

Please refer me to an instance where Jomshof labels the entire religion of Islam and all Muslims as violent.

The World has a problem with Islamist Extremism, that is true. But you know what? The world has a problem with it, because Islam has a problem with it. 100% of islamist extremists are muslims. That means that islamism is specific to muslims, and that makes it, by extension, "their problem". It is of course our responsibility to help them on their way - but it is in the end up to muslims to change their culture so that fewer of these nutjobs appear.

Men commit 96-98% of rapes. That means that men have a problem with rape. It's unfair to say women have a problem with rape, because they don't. Women don't rape, men do. Saying that "the world" has a problem with rape is a cheap way to save a problematic group from having to, you know, actually change the way they go about things.

 

[Random Gamer]

This is pretty much where I fall in. It sounds like these people were making pretty tasteless and xenophobic work. That disgusts me.

No they weren't. You've no idea what you're talking about. They had petitioned to have the main French far right party banned for being a threat to democracy, FFS. The murdered guys were leftists and for some deeply anti-military. They just crapped on everyone because they hated self-aggrandizing jerks and treacherous politicians - and there isn't a shortage of those in France.

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.

They had done this for 50 years, literally. They went against De Gaulle when France was closer to dictatorship than to democracy, they went after the military - when there were ex-OAS goons who could've well been able to shoot them -, they went after the Church - when Catholics actually burned down a theatre for showing Last Temptation of the Christ. They weren't going to stay quiet because a few Muslims went apeshit in some Middle-Eastern countries. Besides, it would've been utterly cowardly. They just couldn't do it because it would've been a complete betrayal.
And that's France, who fought for a very long time against the power of Catholic Church. There's a reason why it's a heavily secular country now. Don't expect people to take kindly to Islamism replacing the Church as the new Inquisition, they'll fight against it, and sooner or later, it won't be pretty.
Actually, I don't think they really thought they'd get attacked. That's because this NEVER happened in France. That's taboo. When people who actually got away with murders knew they shouldn't kill them, groups of nuts who were truly dangerous and numerous, no wonder it comes as a big shock when another group actually acts on it. Specially since it's French-born people, who are therefore supposed to know how French society works, what can be done, what shouldn't really be done, and what can't be done under any condition.

Really, this is a huge shock and that will leave a massive trauma in the French psyche. I'm not sure people realise it know, and I'm not sure they'll be able to consciously notice it, but I expect a definitive shift.
As unfair as it sounds - and as unfair as it IS -, basically the Muslim community will now be seen as having broken a core tenet of French society, and has basically now lost the core of French society's trust, something which will take decades to be fixed. I don't mean this as a racist opinion or as xenophobic propaganda, just as cold hard detached analysis, and it's not a nice conclusion for me, really; and it took me until this morning to fully see it, because this is so messy it's hard to get a clear picture right away. But from now on, I really suspect that the bulk of French people will have, somewhere in their subconscious, the weird notion that a (quite massive) group of people is potentially freedom-killing, and I fear that for most, it'll now only be on an individual basis, once they know the person, that they'll be fully able to consider them as an equal and legitimate member of their society. It's also clear to me that, from now on, the only real valid immigration for the bulk of French society will be "assimilation or bust" - despite any official position any government could take. France never was big on multi-culturalism, and it was usually quite criticised, but now, it's dead, totally dead, and won't be considered worthy of a try before the 2nd part of this century.
As I said, that won't be a conscious decision/behaviour, but this is how big this horrible affair, this horrendous execution, this hateful political assassination (because it's as much these as a terror attack, truthfully) actually is; it willl leave its mark in the general psyche of the country - and that's terrible because it'll take an insane amount of work, time and goodwill to overcome.