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

Je Suis Charlie

charliehebdo.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 292 posts

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#271

Post by coldtea »

mercer wrote: post #168
DanBC wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By everyone continuing to utilize their freedom of speech. It's really that simple. The only way to lose is to not make use of your freedom. Do you think normal daily newspapers should print the cartoons? How about KKK cartoon propaganda? How about "With Jews you lose"? http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/with-...

I don't really see how this is the same thing. Can you elaborate?

He means that you're either OK with mocking both of them and their faiths, or you hold a different standard for Muslims vs Jews, etc.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#272

Post by coldtea »

mercer wrote: post #64

My heart sunk as soon as I heard the terrorists were muslim extremists, as here in Holland anti-immigrant and anti-muslim feelings are very present, and these incidents are fuel on the fire of racism here. I really, really hope that people from different muslim communities speak up as well. In past incidents there was a lot of silence, usually prompted by fear (I suspect). I understand if they don't, but I hope they…

>My heart sunk as soon as I heard the terrorists were muslim extremists, as here in Holland anti-immigrant and anti-muslim feelings are very present, and these incidents are fuel on the fire of racism here.

Shouldn't your heard sink for the victims first?

Looks like you have a pre-defined ideology ("muslim communities are OK always and a good fit for our society") and when faced when a counter fact ("under some circumstances like today, people of that faith can be wrong/dangerous") you try to ignore it.

Not saying that muslim communities are bad in general, but being open in what problematic spots they can exhibit (e.g. opression towards their women, they sometimes harbor extremists like that, etc) is more helpful than trying to absolve them with apriori ideas. Truth can also be a common ground with those not wanting the muslims in Holland. E.g. you might hate their racist propaganda and lies, but you both can agree to some specific problems and can try to work out solutions.

Else you have two camps, the racists and those that thing everybody is always rosy, and society never solves its issues, and can never integrate other communities.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#273

Post by pouetpouet »

_almosnow wrote: post #266
pouetpouet wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First I find it really offensive that you bring that point up. Because I think you are blaming the victims. They had every right to publish what they did. Because anything can be sacred to anybody, so we won't be able to discuss anything. When something is sacred to somebody it applies only to them not to non follower of these made up laws. Caving to that would be accepting de facto sharia law. You can't hide behind…

>Because I think you are blaming the victims. Didn't you read the disclaimer? >Religious nutjobs deserve every bit of mockery and disrespect. What? You are out of your mind dude.

No. I am very serious. Religious fundamentalists should be mocked and ridiculed. I find it very offensive that you would suggest otherwise. See? Different things can be really offensive to different people. Religious people don't have the monopoly on being offended nor on truth. If I turn the TV on, I will hear many offensive things. But first, I get over it. And second I don't claim that it should be illegal to express their view. Yet you do. You are out of your mind.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#274

Post by mercer »

coldtea wrote: post #272
mercer wrote: post #64

My heart sunk as soon as I heard the terrorists were muslim extremists, as here in Holland anti-immigrant and anti-muslim feelings are very present, and these incidents are fuel on the fire of racism here. I really, really hope that people from different muslim communities speak up as well. In past incidents there was a lot of silence, usually prompted by fear (I suspect). I understand if they don't, but I hope they…

> My heart sunk as soon as I heard the terrorists were muslim extremists, as here in Holland anti-immigrant and anti-muslim feelings are very present, and these incidents are fuel on the fire of racism here. Shouldn't your heard sink for the victims first? Looks like you have a pre-defined ideology ("muslim communities are OK always and a good fit for our society") and when faced when a counter fact ("under some circ…

I think you read too much into my words. I felt terrible for the victims too, but I didn't feel that mentioning this would have much value.

I completely agree with you, and as I might have mentioned in another comment, my experiences living among muslims has definitely not left me with only positive impressions. Reality is not so simple.

I merely wanted to emphasize my fear that this situation is a lot of fuel on the fire in those who oversimplify against muslims, and I felt that this was worth mentioning.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#275

Post by rurban »

It might be an unpopular opinion, but "I am not Charlie".

Even as atheist, some of those Mohammed caricatures are not funny or satire, they are simply over the line. Not just juvenile, silly or stupid. In most other countries they would be forbidden. E.g. this one from 2010, who caused the stir and death threat. http://torstenh.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CH8.jpg France has a different liberal, explicit anti-clerical and anti-censorship tradition. The US and scandanavian countries also. But elsewhere it would be illegal.

Compare them to similar Jesus caricatures, e.g. http://www.zensur-archiv.de/index.php?title=Satire

It's a fine line and in some cases german Titanic covers were allowed. "Ein Strafverfahren wurde von der Frankfurter Staatsanwaltschaft mit dem Verweis auf die "Satire" und deren Mittel der "Verzerrung" und Übertreibung" abgelehnt. (Sdt. 24./25.4.2010)"

The legal situation in Germany and Austria: § 5 explicitly states to respect the religious beliefs of the population. In addition to the insults of religious faiths (§ 166 para. 1 of the Criminal Code).

Anybody who explicitly agrees with Charlie Hebdo and posts images will probably fall under these paragraphs in those countries.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#276

Post by johnchristopher »

rurban wrote: post #275

It might be an unpopular opinion, but "I am not Charlie". Even as atheist, some of those Mohammed caricatures are not funny or satire, they are simply over the line. Not just juvenile, silly or stupid. In most other countries they would be forbidden. E.g. this one from 2010, who caused the stir and death threat. http://torstenh.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CH8.jpg France has a different liberal, explicit anti-cleric…

I believe the narrative behind the meme don't imply that one agrees with what Charlie Hebdo said or how it said it. I believe it's more along the lines of `you only silenced one voice, not our voices` or `I died a little too, even if I don't agree with Charlie Hebdo stances`.

edit: the meme originally came from the charliehebdo website. I'd venture to guess that they mean `you didn't kill Charlie. Charlie is everyone`.

edit 2: nope, I am wrong according to WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_suis_Charlie And that's why memes and absolutes suck.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#277

Post by chernevik »

rurban wrote: post #275

It might be an unpopular opinion, but "I am not Charlie". Even as atheist, some of those Mohammed caricatures are not funny or satire, they are simply over the line. Not just juvenile, silly or stupid. In most other countries they would be forbidden. E.g. this one from 2010, who caused the stir and death threat. http://torstenh.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CH8.jpg France has a different liberal, explicit anti-cleric…

Yeah, well, hate speech laws are themselves a pretty bad idea. Today it's "say nothing blasphemous about the Prophet" and then it's "say nothing blasphemous about the leading scholars".

The cartoon controversy was started by Jyllands-Posten not because they wanted to offend Muslims, but because they believed that discourse about Islam and its role in society was being constrained by self-censorship and fear. Their purpose was to open that discourse by re-establishing the right of free speech. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02...

The effort might have been dismissed as a juvenile stunt and an unnecessary provocation if the response had been a lot of angry criticism. The violence that has instead followed demonstrates the validity of their concern, and the necessity of their provocation.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#278

Post by mieses »

mercurial wrote: post #24
daeken wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they weren't even-handed, it wouldn't change a thing. They could be publishing a newspaper named "Fuck Muhammad" and it'd still be equally wrong for them to have been attacked in this way. I'm not entirely sure why we coddle religious fanatics as we do, but it needs to stop for us to progress as a society.

Oh, I agree, it's just that the impression the FT tries to give ("Charlie Hebdo, the newspaper specialized in Muslim-baiting") is wrong. Hopefully nobody reading this thinks it's entirely reasonable to shoot people for a drawing.

I think we agree that the killing is not a good outcome. Going back to your initial statement that "hopefully nobody reading this thinks it's entirely reasonable to shoot people for a drawing", my point is that hopefully nobody reading this thinks Islam is compatible with reason.

"Religious practice" is not limited to ritual. Good deeds, helping the elderly, being honest, not stealing, the 10 commandments, sacrificing the goat, killing the cartoonist, etc are all part of religious practice. "Religious reasoning" exists in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The killing in this case is not justified through interpretation, rationalization, or reasoning. It is commanded by the final, uncorrupted word of God.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#279

Post by random123456 »

Throw-away account for obvious reasons:

The problem with fanatics is just that: they're illogically fanatical about their beliefs. They're blindly driven by an ideology and can't be reasoned with, much less asked to sit at a table to discuss their grievances and concerns.

It bears noticing that while "Charlie" spoke out for the right of freedom of expression, he did so in a culture where that was only permissible within a context that the French found suitable [0]. While crazy and murderous acts are impossible to excuse--and should be condemned--it's hard to understand why people are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. That's what chickens do.

We are all Charlie, but apparently only if we choose to fully assimilate and not carry on with any religious or traditional customs others might find offensive.

0 - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#280

Post by waps »

azth wrote: post #255
waps wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe he meant from the perspective of muslims. That answer is here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan This is what makes this so difficult : muslims killing because of negative opinions on islam is something that is sanctioned by the religion, and that was practiced for over 15 centuries now. A very uncomfortable question is what muslim children in the west are taught on this question. I'm…

I don't know why you keep pasting that Wikipedia link. It even says that this story is false and fabricated.

I must have missed that part of it. It contains some apologia, but it also contains links to the primary sources. Look up what those sources are.

Furthermore, this is a standard part of islamic law (killing for criticism). Do you dispute that as well ?

Plus muhammad had over a dozen poets executed, as well as entire camps of people suspected merely of leaving his army. Are you going to call all of it false ? Famously he had a tribe massacred, including women and children because one woman in it refused to marry one of his soldiers.

I don't get how anyone can defend this monster.

Post reply on HN