Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: undefined

#51

Post by MichaelSalib »

plinkplonk wrote: post #31

I think this (and its attendant media coverage) is great because it brings religious irrationality and violence to the attention of the non hacker mainstream media. I understand why Muslims wouldn't want to draw Mohammed but insisting that non Muslims shouldn't draw Mohammed is insane. This would be like Buddhists insisting that since to them, meat eating is abhorrent, they ( or a "small minority" ) would feel offend…

The ignorance here is astonishing. Muslims don't actually insist that non-Muslims refrain from drawing Mohammad. Have you ever been to the Supreme Court building in DC? It has a giant frieze depicting Mohammad (see http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf ). And yet Muslims don't complain about that. In fact, several famous pieces of Islamic art well known in the Arab world depict Mohammad. A simple depiction is not the issue.

What is the issue is when people use depictions of Mohammad as a way of insulting Muslims. Stick figures don't do that. Pictures of Mohammad as a terrorist do. That's what triggered riots. Note that out of a billion Muslims, the only people complaining about the recent Southpark episode were a tiny nutball group in NYC founded by a former Jew.

But hey! By all means, put a stupid drawing on your website. That'll change the world! Muslims that see it will just assume that you're an ignorant bigot who hates Muslims, but I'm sure you'll feel better, and isn't that what this is all about? Having an excuse for self-righteous moral preening? Feeling smug and superior without actually doing anything to improve the world?

Re: undefined

#52

Post by MichaelSalib »

Jd wrote: post #35
plinkplonk wrote: post #31

I think this (and its attendant media coverage) is great because it brings religious irrationality and violence to the attention of the non hacker mainstream media. I understand why Muslims wouldn't want to draw Mohammed but insisting that non Muslims shouldn't draw Mohammed is insane. This would be like Buddhists insisting that since to them, meat eating is abhorrent, they ( or a "small minority" ) would feel offend…

The important thing isn't a zillion people doing their own thing in their own place, it is being coordinated about standing up our rights. This is a great opportunity.

Coordinated? Standing up for your rights? This is insane.

You're not standing up for any rights. You're not challenging a power structure and you're not risking anything. You're mocking a tiny powerless religious minority. That's it. The only standing that you're doing is with bigots.

Think for a moment and explain to me how this "coordinated" action makes the world a better place. Explain what change you expect to happen and how you plan to effect it.

Edited to add: Why do you believe a group that murders and threatens people with death (fundamentalist muslims) are powerless?

Many many groups murder and threaten people with death (some of these we call "governments"). The US started a war that exterminated a million people for no reason. We didn't just threaten people, we actually killed a lot of them. And yet many Americans are perfectly reasonable people who are very friendly. What a paradox.

Having actually studied Islamist movements a bit, I know something you don't. Most of them don't care about you. You are not important, and no matter how many pictures of Mohammad you draw, you will never be important. Their priority is some local and often nationalist issue. They. Just. Don't. Care. About. You.

A small number of Islamist groups might care about "Americans" in a broader sense. But these groups generally lack both capabilities and competence. Smart people consider capabilities when analyzing threats. People that hate you but are powerless don't count when it comes to rational threat analysis. A few nutjobs in New York are not a real threat.

I tell you what: why don't you list for me the many acts of horrific violence that have come about because of the giant frieze of Mohammad on the Supreme Court building and I'll seriously consider the danger you face. Deal?

Re: undefined

#53

Post by MichaelSalib »

madair wrote: post #28
tptacek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've injected a premise into this argument that the original commenter never asserted (that Facebook is acting in defense of shareholder value, and for no other reason). You've damaged your credibility.

It doesn't matter whether or not the original commentator asserted that reason or not, Facebook is a public corporation in the United States, it's not a private individual, it's not a private corporation, it's not Zuckerberg. Public corporations in the United States are licensed for the purpose of maximizing shareholder value. This alone is not prima facie lassez faire , but the balancing regulatory framework for cor…

When Facebook makes a decision, it is to maximize business value, as in shareholder value.

I once discussed this with a US Attorney. Shareholder value is actually a fairly nebulous concept. All sorts of corporate actions that promote goodwill in the community can be cast as improving shareholder value, even if they are not profitable. Shareholder value requires a great deal more subjective assessment than one might think. So I don't think it makes sense to speak about corporate motivations exclusively in terms of narrow short term profit motive.

(There really aren't any examples of 100% anything goes capitalism in the world.)

Somalia?

Re: undefined

#54

Post by MichaelSalib »

alanh wrote: post #29
lidmith wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling facebook a utility is silly. Utilities are services which require the building of infrastructure, with few or no alternatives, and often which are granted a government monopoly for building said infrastructure. Facebook is a website to post some crap on. There are thousands of such sites, they weren't granted a monopoly, and they didn't build infrastructure. I'm all for freedom of speech, and I think that the…

I only affirmed that Facebook is utility-like, not an actual monopoly or utility; likewise, that their action is unethical, not illegal.

Unethical according to whose ethical system? Yours? Mine? Zuckerberg's? There is no ethical system that people universally agree on. And the fact that a third party fails to satisfy the requirements of your ethical system doesn't strike me as a problem.

Re: undefined

#55

Post by MichaelSalib »

adrianwaj wrote: post #21

Just waiting for someone to do a Mohammed picture submission site. A dangerous project if there ever was one. - there's an historical archive here: http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Um, no, it is not a dangerous project at all. See my message earlier in this thread to learn that (1) Muslims don't get angry over generic depictions, (2) Insulting Muslims with pictures of Mohammad is no more insulting than just using words, (3) Muslims are a tiny relatively powerless minority in the US, and (4) there is no rational basis for believing that drawing pictures by itself will endanger you.

Re: undefined

#56

Post by MichaelSalib »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #41
invisible wrote: post #6

If even one person at Facebook was threatened with violence for not taking down the pages, I think that it would be irresponsible and dumb to not meet those demands given the track record of SOME parts of the Muslim religion. The fact is I would be offended if Facebook didn't do this and I was an employee of Facebook.

Yes. It's best to give in to bullies. To subjugate our freedoms and compromise our principles to whomever has the sharpest knife to our throat. Yes, surely that is the way to make all our lives better. How could it possibly go wrong?

Um, who exactly has a knife to your throat? Are you really so paranoid as to believe that your life is in danger?

Re: undefined

#57

Post by nailer »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #51
plinkplonk wrote: post #31

I think this (and its attendant media coverage) is great because it brings religious irrationality and violence to the attention of the non hacker mainstream media. I understand why Muslims wouldn't want to draw Mohammed but insisting that non Muslims shouldn't draw Mohammed is insane. This would be like Buddhists insisting that since to them, meat eating is abhorrent, they ( or a "small minority" ) would feel offend…

The ignorance here is astonishing. Muslims don't actually insist that non-Muslims refrain from drawing Mohammad. Have you ever been to the Supreme Court building in DC? It has a giant frieze depicting Mohammad (see http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf ). And yet Muslims don't complain about that. In fact, several famous pieces of Islamic art well known in the Arab world depict Mohammad. A simple dep…

People are expressing the right to mock and criticise ideas. They are using Mohammed as people unfortunately have been murdered for publicly insulting him, and they are showing solidarity. This is a good thing, and shows people who want to hurt others that the people they prey on have a lot of friends who they'll also have to hurt if they are to succeed in their objectives. This is a good thing.

Re: undefined

#58

Post by nailer »

mdh wrote: post #50
plinkplonk wrote: post #31

I think this (and its attendant media coverage) is great because it brings religious irrationality and violence to the attention of the non hacker mainstream media. I understand why Muslims wouldn't want to draw Mohammed but insisting that non Muslims shouldn't draw Mohammed is insane. This would be like Buddhists insisting that since to them, meat eating is abhorrent, they ( or a "small minority" ) would feel offend…

I'd distinguish between a right and an obligation . If you have something worthwhile to say about Mohammed and his teachings (be it for or against) and a depiction of him will help, go ahead and draw him. If however, you're doing it just because you can , then you're doing nothing to help reduce inter-religion tension and, in fact, are exhibiting some of the same sort of dogmatic insistence that everyone conform to y…

> you're doing it just because you can, then you're doing nothing to help reduce inter-religion tension and

Agreed. But I think individual rights triumph the need for harmony with people who seek to rule our minds and tongues.

> in fact, are exhibiting some of the same sort of dogmatic insistence that everyone conform to your views that you are railing against.

How so? I'm not trying to change how anyone else thinks, or what they say.

Re: undefined

#59

Post by nailer »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #52
Jd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important thing isn't a zillion people doing their own thing in their own place, it is being coordinated about standing up our rights. This is a great opportunity.

Coordinated? Standing up for your rights? This is insane. You're not standing up for any rights. You're not challenging a power structure and you're not risking anything. You're mocking a tiny powerless religious minority. That's it. The only standing that you're doing is with bigots. Think for a moment and explain to me how this "coordinated" action makes the world a better place. Explain what change you expect to h…

Why do you believe a group that murders and threatens people with death (fundamentalist muslims) are powerless?

Re: undefined

#60

Post by nailer »

philwelch wrote: post #30
madair wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter whether or not the original commentator asserted that reason or not, Facebook is a public corporation in the United States, it's not a private individual, it's not a private corporation, it's not Zuckerberg. Public corporations in the United States are licensed for the purpose of maximizing shareholder value. This alone is not prima facie lassez faire , but the balancing regulatory framework for cor…

"Facebook is a public corporation in the United States" When did they IPO?

I think a few HN's just went 'shit' before realizing the grandparent made a mistake....
Post reply on HN