!!!EXCLUSIEF religies. MOORDENAAR VAN EUROPA EN ... !!!!EXCLUSIVE RELIGIONS. KILLER OUT OF EUROPE AND ... !!!!RELIGIONS exclusive. KILLER OUT DE L'EUROPE ET ... !!!!¡¡¡¡ RELIGIONES EXCLUYENTES Y ASESINAS... FUERA DE EUROPA YA...!!!!
SI NO QUEREMOS SER : EURABIA
Je Suis Charlie
171–180 of 292 posts
Re: Je Suis Charlie
#172308 points in 2 hours and 121 comments... and listed at #24. Ranked below stories like: 2. 121 points, 3 hours ago , 26 comments 3. 69 points , 2 hours ago , 22 comments 5. 138 points, 4 hours ago , 33 comments 8. 80 points , 4 hours ago , 28 comments 9. 46 points , 3 hours ago , 10 comments 10. 56 points , 3 hours ago , 19 comments Looks like it's being flagged left and right. Why? What if, instead of Charlie, it wa…
I'll upvote something that actually discusses how this effects our freedom rather than just some "let's all be upset". As far as I know western politicians have been far more effective at undermining our freedom and increasing extremism than the terrorists could ever have been on their own.
!!!EXCLUSIEF religies. MOORDENAAR VAN EUROPA EN ... !!!!EXCLUSIVE RELIGIONS. KILLER OUT OF EUROPE AND ... !!!!RELIGIONS exclusive. KILLER OUT DE L'EUROPE ET ... !!!!¡¡¡¡ RELIGIONES EXCLUYENTES Y ASESINAS... FUERA DE EUROPA YA...!!!!
SI NO QUEREMOS SER : EURABIA
Re: Je Suis Charlie
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, at a time like this it is important not to forget that the last major terrorist attack in Europe was instigated by a fundamentalist christian norwegian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik Sure. And there were also numerous bombings and attacks in Europe by left-wing extremists during the "years of lead". That said, the difference between Breivik and these guys is just the beard length. Right…
The difference is that religion didn't play a role in the motivation behind Breivik's attack.
I really don't understand the downvotes.
Re: Je Suis Charlie
#174308 points in 2 hours and 121 comments... and listed at #24. Ranked below stories like: 2. 121 points, 3 hours ago , 26 comments 3. 69 points , 2 hours ago , 22 comments 5. 138 points, 4 hours ago , 33 comments 8. 80 points , 4 hours ago , 28 comments 9. 46 points , 3 hours ago , 10 comments 10. 56 points , 3 hours ago , 19 comments Looks like it's being flagged left and right. Why? What if, instead of Charlie, it wa…
Submissions about this story have been flagkilled all day. I guess that it's to prevent abuses, but as you say, we are all affected. I think it's important to have a single main thread about this.
Either some folks don't want to see "news" on HN at all or they are flagging it because they don't like the specific subject or are afraid of the conversation that will result.
Re: Je Suis Charlie
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that religion didn't play a role in the motivation behind Breivik's attack.
No? He himself claims that it does, in the sense that he sees himself as a Christian crusader defending the european christian monoculture against an islamic invasion. His reason for killing social democrats was that he feels that the party is too supportive of a multicultural society.
That was xenophobia, naionalism, traditionalism, etc.
Re: Je Suis Charlie
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, at a time like this it is important not to forget that the last major terrorist attack in Europe was instigated by a fundamentalist christian norwegian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik Sure. And there were also numerous bombings and attacks in Europe by left-wing extremists during the "years of lead". That said, the difference between Breivik and these guys is just the beard length. Right…
The difference is that religion didn't play a role in the motivation behind Breivik's attack.
The thing is that on the level of abstraction where 'religion' prompts someone to kill people, it really is rather facetious to consider Breivik any different.
As far as I'm concerned (and others too, judging by the downvotes), his concoction of 'Western-european culture', Christian or not, that led to his actions, is on the same level as this particular case.
Singling out 'religion' as somehow a differentiating factor is like trying to differentiate between Hitler's eradication of gypsies and homosexuals. It serves no purpose other than raising the suspicion that one particularly hates gypsies or homosexuals.
Re: Je Suis Charlie
#177308 points in 2 hours and 121 comments... and listed at #24. Ranked below stories like: 2. 121 points, 3 hours ago , 26 comments 3. 69 points , 2 hours ago , 22 comments 5. 138 points, 4 hours ago , 33 comments 8. 80 points , 4 hours ago , 28 comments 9. 46 points , 3 hours ago , 10 comments 10. 56 points , 3 hours ago , 19 comments Looks like it's being flagged left and right. Why? What if, instead of Charlie, it wa…
If we're not supposed to comment when we flag articles[1], does it really make sense to ask why? For the record, I hit flag because while this was an outrageous act of barbarism, and indeed freedom of speech is important for all of us, the link does not particularly gratify intellectual curiosity[1]. Nor do I think it's a good idea to start discussing even significant non-hacker news of the day here. The (relative) f…
I respectfully disagree. It does sate one's intellectual curiosity to see how an organisation manages its web presence in the immediate aftermath of an event such as this.
Freedom of expression is also central to the hacker ethos, and even with the limited information we have at present, it is quite apparent this was an attack on that principle.
Re: Je Suis Charlie
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even aside from the blatantly unreasonable people, consider the reasonable people who don't think that you should have that freedom of speech. Demographic trends present in Europe today make eventual change in public policy on the matter an increasingly realistic prospect. This is one of the underlying reasons behind the European right's distress about rising influence of Muslims, and a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment a…
Hang on: in england we had blasphemy laws that meant you could not do an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using christ (those laws have recently gone); and we had racial discrimination laws which meant you could not have an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using g*d. It's not some radical muslim fundamentalist conspiracy to extend these protections to muslims. (I am not saying it's the right thing to do. I think…
The UK establishment appears to be side with Christianity being openly mocked (viz a special show on Tim Rice choosing to lead with songs and artists mocking Christianity being scheduled for prime-time Christmas day). In contrast the BBC will not even mention that attacks were perpetrated by muslims [rightly or wrongly] 'in the name of Islam' in news reports.
>you could not do an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using christ //
Something like Jesus Christ Superstar, Jerry Springer the Opera or The Life of Brian [which have all been featured on the BBC] are pretty closely mocking in the same way as the Jyllands-Posten cartoons; except instead of mocking people they are directly targeted at the subject of Christian worship and respect. An equivalent to the Mohammed cartoons would be something like a cartoon of John the Baptist.
Blasphemy laws haven't been applied here in living memory to "defend" against insult to Christians (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3753408.stm). Speaking about the message of the New Testament of the Bible in public can get your arrested though (eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-p...).
Not sure what race discrimination has to do with questions of freedom of conscience and speech though.
Re: Je Suis Charlie
#179I hope they are not gonna use this as an excuse to pass new laws to increase surveillance.
Re: Je Suis Charlie
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's if freedom of speech continues to be allowed and accepted. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Freedom of Speech has a very bright future.
These attacks are likely to promote freedoms of speech and to slow down people calling for restrictions. My position used to be one of asking people to consider whether the value of printing a shitty cartoon is worth causing deep offence to very many people. The murders have changed my position to supporting -with caution- the printing of these cartoons.
>the value of printing a shitty cartoon is worth causing deep offence to very many people //
Mostly they're choosing to be offended, they're seeking out something to be offended by. It's a case of "we want to be violent against people who oppose our views, so we'll look and find things we can call offensive and use that to justify murder and violence". It's behaviour that seems very true to the war-lord that inspires it however [as much as that person is depicted in "his" writings/collected sayings].