NEW IMAGE OF CHARLIE BEEN SHOT: http://goo.gl/CsFP8F
Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
111–120 of 489 posts
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
> racists I fail to see how the attacks have anything to do with racism . Islamophobia is not racism. > Send me some photographs or your mother or spouse and let me modify those images. Let's see if you are able to ignore or laugh them off. Well, I'm not sure they would consent to me sharing photos of them, but you can have mine :) Just add me as a friend on Facebook (Tom Primozic), and you'll have a collection of ph…
> not funny or disgusting
And therein lies the rub: would you subsequently gun someone down because they made photos of your loved ones which you find distasteful?
Almost nobody would.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#113NEW IMAGE OF CHARLIE HEBDO SHOT: http://goo.gl/CsFP8F
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#114The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it The Qur'an to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their ow…
[deleted]
Race is an immutable characteristic. No one could possibly change their race. It's barely a valid concept. Holding someone responsible for an inseparable part of themselves is both ill-conceived and futile.
Religion is software: adopt a baby from a family with a different religion and odds are that the baby will grow into an adult having your religion. It may feel like an inseparable part of oneself, but it is not: ideas can be reevaluated at any time, and probably should be.
You are responsible for the memes you host and propagate. You should be free to believe and say anything. But ideas have consequences, and you own the consequences: at least to the extent that your ideas are open to criticism or ridicule, but not to the extent of violence.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
>Surely those faggots need to be condemned/punished/killed/whatever This is exactly what is wrong with people that hold your point of view. You privledge religion as something sacred and then go on to be homophobic and encourage the use of violence as a form of punishment. This is a common theme from people the defend religion and it's pedestal. If you want to claim that views are views you need to put everything on…
I think no religion preaches violence, including Islam. Its the followers that have their own interpretations.. Do we relate the acts of Hitler to Christianity?
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for the upvote. If the downvotes were due to religious reasons, then I have to admit it is rather sad to see them on HN. On the other hand, if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them. From the link and history of the cartoons, I've reached the rather odd conclusion that anyone named "Mahomet" or "Muhammad" in a cartoon is automatically assumed to be the prophet Muhammad.
> if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them You were just asking an earnest question. What's actually stupid is the downvote feature itself. Upvotes can help promote good content and flags can call attention to inappropriate or problematic content. Likewise, comments can be used to express disagreement. So, what's the purpose of downvotes? Are we in preschool?
If users should be trusted to push comments up, then why not down also? A down vote doesn't have to mean "this comment should not be on HN", it can be "I disagree with this comment" or "I think this comment should be lower down".
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#117I used to think society would, at some point, grow up and leave religion behind. But lately, it just feels like a far 'lower' form of religion is just taking over. I think that western christianity has made some big strides. For example, by leaving all the violence behind. Now the violent ones are winning. This makes me sad for the future of Europe.
Coverage of these events, with or without anti-Muslim sentiment, almost never takes the point of view that it is the fact that people are brought up to really believe that there are invisible, magic beings in the ether who care about the state of affairs on earth that is at least in part the root cause here.
And that is a terrible shame because not drawing attention to that fact is a tacit endorsement of extremist beliefs, as Harris, Hitchens, et al. have pointed out many times. You can't have it both ways. You either believe there are invisible, magic beings or you don't. There is no "tolerance" in between. If you think they exist, then you can hardly be surprised when someone takes this ludicrous proposition and bends it to their own political, social, or economic goals -- because you can bend it any way you want, by definition, since it's all made up.
I don't think it is at all obvious that if there were not implicit endorsement of religious beliefs of all kind all over earth, that it wasn't OK for grown-ups to walk around saying they actually believe this nonsense, that this violence would manifest itself in some other way. It's important to at least consider the possibility that religion itself is the problem here.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#118The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it The Qur'an to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their ow…
While what you said is probably true for obvious reasons, also remember that those cartoons probably offended around 1.5bn people. Seeing that three people decided to react violently after several years of the paper being put out weekly, it is fairly safe to say that this could be described as a clash of the extreme extremists (of whom there are very few).
I am pretty sure the outrage against anti-Semitic jokes would be ridiculous, too (which CH spoke out against and fired over).
I am not defending anybody here, just wanted to describe a slightly different point of view. Obviously it is CH's own choice to put out and condone whatever they want and that choice should be granted.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#119How do we obtain a copy in the US? Anyone have a good source?
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#120[deleted]
I a way, you are correct. They KNEW something like this was going to happen. So in fact they were luring for a reaction. No-one actually claims otherwise.
That is of course irrelevant to the moral question of freedom of speech.