201–210 of 292 posts
I wonder if the debate in the media will focus on religious fanaticism or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative.
> or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative. Not going to happen. French people value satire and freedom of expression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
note that everyone is quoting Charb on this, sometimes just quoting the "I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees" that is actually him quoting someone else: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata
weired in my old greek lessons it was already said to be the motto of Athen. http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/3824 Maybe Zappata went to school and studied the story of Athen?
> the moderate muslims are often rather quiet.
Yes we are. But there are a few reasons for that:
1- First, Muslims can't be put in one group, there is 1.6 billion muslims worldwide with hundreds of different views and levels of tolerance.
2- Most of them don't have time or are too busy with their daily life. Think about the % of people who go vote every four years in a democracy. 30% maybe 50% at max vote, the rest can't be bothered because they are busy with their daily problems. Add to that that most Muslims live in a third world country, so they have enough problems already.
3- The first people affected by terrorism in term of body counts and extremism in general are Muslims themselves. Did you know for example that ISIS consider the previous president of egypt (Mursi) who is from the muslim brotherhood to be an infidel who need to be killed.
4- People in Muslim countries are getting numb to all this news reports because they are used to it. I remember when I was a kid watching Arab TV news showing people dying in Palestine and at one time the TV commentator laughed. She then said she was sorry and she didn't mean to laugh at what was happening. Most Arabs/Muslim who care about what's going on the Middle East have already watched too much death to react to it.
5- Some people do want to go to the street and demonstrate against this blood shed but they are not allowed by their local governments. They fear that this could turn in a revolt. Arab spring says hi.
6- There have been hundreds if not thousands of condemnation an protests by muslims all over the world but the media don't cover them much because they don't fit the narrative of evil muslims.
Me as a Muslim I'm ashamed of what is happening and wish this Scumbugs are captured and put to justice. I see to much politic invested in terrorism that I know it's about power not about religion. I also do believe we muslims failed big time to adapt to the 21st century and need to wake up and get our acts together.
I'm really sorry for the families of the victims and I hope they capture the scums who did this.
There was an interesting discussion on reddit about this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rmmx8/el...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Martin Niemoller's "First they came for the Communists...." Seriously? You're making a comparison to the Nazis? Edit: It's 3 assholes with assault rifles, not a totalitarian state. Can we calibrate our references to be a bit less hysterical and hyperbolic?
He's presumably talking about free speech in general, which is most certainly under attack in a large number of authoritarian nations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please tell me "Charlie" refers to something hilarious, much like "ein Berliner" meant "a donut", more/less. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mu02xUgE4k (Don't mean to take away from the gravity of the situation — merely wanted to share a good laugh.)
(That's irrelevant. However, it's also an urban legend. Be rest assured that no one in Kennedy's German audience was even for a second confused and didn't understand exactly what he meant. He was perfectly clear. Even if you argue that his choice of words is grammatically questionable – something I disagree with and I think it works quite well as an emphasis and makes it clear that he is speaking figuratively and not…
An equivalent(ish) English example would be saying "I am a New Yorker."
Does it mean you literally are a Reuben (or New Yorker Sandwich)? Hell no, it is plainly obvious that is a ludicrous interpretation even without grammatical context of the rest of the speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please tell me "Charlie" refers to something hilarious, much like "ein Berliner" meant "a donut", more/less. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mu02xUgE4k (Don't mean to take away from the gravity of the situation — merely wanted to share a good laugh.)
(That's irrelevant. However, it's also an urban legend. Be rest assured that no one in Kennedy's German audience was even for a second confused and didn't understand exactly what he meant. He was perfectly clear. Even if you argue that his choice of words is grammatically questionable – something I disagree with and I think it works quite well as an emphasis and makes it clear that he is speaking figuratively and not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it possible that the "je suis charlie" pdf being shared is an ISIS hack, a planted virus? Anyone?
I don't understand why you are asking this, multiple times to boot. It seems unlikely to me. Do you have any reason to suspect that?
Not sure why the previous poster thinks this might be ISIS on the other hand.
There are many other instances where you can't get away with something just because it is free speech. How come guys like Julian Assange are not protected under 'free speech'? How about people who sign NDA's? How come it would be heavily criticized (and probably illegal) for a newspaper to start running weekly cartoons where they make fun of the black population in America, depicting them with the all the token representations and slurs that are now widely accepted as 'racist'?
I really want to know what's different, what's permissible, what isn't. Are there some written rules about this or is it just the result of how things are perceived by the majority of the public (i.e. what we like vs what we don't)?
Disclaimer:
I'm not muslim, I don't sympathise with their religion and neither I'm trying to condone what happened. I made up an example with black people because that's a very sensitive and controversial issue in the US, but the intent is not to spark controversy around racism and the likes. I'm probably going to be downvoted into oblivion but I want to know if at least I get an intelligent point of view to these issues.
I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. 'Free speech' I know, but when does someone's right to express themselves ends? Doesn't (or shouldn't) it has its limits? There are many other instances where you can't get away with something just because it is free speech. How come guys like Julian Assange are not protected under 'fre…