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

Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 489 posts

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#141

Post by jacquesm »

corin_ wrote: post #116
unclebucknasty wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

> I think this comment should be lower down

You actually get two downvotes: if you think a comment should be lower down you can (but shouldn't) upvote all the other comments and downvote the one you think should be lower.

Downvotes are an optimization.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#143

Post by tomp »

[deleted] wrote: post #103
tomp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[deleted]

> This is exactly what racist groups - British National Party - say.

Well, it's true. Don't ad-hominem them, it gives them power (because they can rationally say that you're wrong).

> we should not allow Islamophobic groups to use the Frenh murders to spew their Islamophobe material in mainstream media

I agree. But depictions of Muhammad, insulting as they might be for Muslims, aren't Islamophobic.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#144

Post by corin_ »

infruset wrote: post #38
[deleted] wrote: post #28

[deleted]

> book a ticket in the home supporters area How is that related? They didn't book a ticket in Mecca for all I know.

That part of the analogy was just part of the "everyone knows what would happen so why do it" rather than a direct equivalent. I presume. Terrible analogy either way.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#145

Post by rikacomet »

anoonmoose wrote: post #127
rikacomet wrote: post #95

First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam. But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wish…

"both parties were at wrong here"..."it is a kin to playing with their feelings"..."such mishaps happen"..."the level of satire in question here, was perhaps too much". Honestly, I can't help but come away feeling that what you're saying is that what Hebdo did was so wrong on their part that they should have seen it coming and it is their own fault.

did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#146

Post by ThomPete »

Charlie Hebdos fight is not a fight for freedom of expression but against self-censorship. I think a lot media and politicians forget that.

We all deal with self-censorship every day as we live amongst each other. Some people have more courage than others and dare take it "behind enemy lines" where other rules apply.

Freedom of expression is a legal right to express yourself without fearing those in power is going to shut you down or prosecute you. We mostly have that and the only people who can threaten it is the politicians which unfortunately is exactly what some of them are going to do.

We already see the first reactions like this http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...

And all over Europe there are people taking advantage of the situation and proposing laws that will actually threaten freedom of expression.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#147

Post by mcv »

fafner wrote: post #35
olavk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western Christianity certainly haven't left violence behind. Just take the christian terrorist Anders Brevik who killed 80 people in Norway.

Breivik isn't a Christian terrorist. He described himself as not being overly religious. He is also very critical of modern (I think that's what's meant by Western here) Christianity, both in the Church of Norway and Catholicism.

I've read somewhere that the Charlie Hebdo attackers weren't actually very religious either. Didn't visit mosques or read the Quran, but felt separated from society, and looking for some meaning to their life, some way to have impact, they found this. The article claimed they had more in common with Breivik and the Unabomber, or maybe even the Sandy Hook shooter and similar lone gunmen.

It wouldn't surprise me if the same is true for many extremists. ISIS also apparently gets a surprising number of recruits from Europe. People not fitting in looking for a place where they can be appreciated.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#148

Post by jholman »

Udik wrote: post #71

Yesterday the Guardian published the best opinion I've read so far about satire, Charlie Hebdo, the terrorist attacks and our reaction to them. And it's a short comic strip by the cartoonist Joe Sacco: http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/...

Hmn, I agree (about "best I've read so far"). Thank you for the link.

In a related but distinct vein, two thoughts:

Primus. I do not doubt that these murders are a crime and we should grieve and be angry. But why are these murders worth of all this attention, relative to the inattention paid to countless other atrocities? What of children in schools in Palestine (hundreds dead in 2014), or Boko Haram victims in Nigeria (c.f. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30777607 ), or whatever-whatever-I-don't-know-what-because-I'm-part-of-the-problem. And so far this is all trite and obvious, so here's my point: I think there are two reasons. One, innocent if depressing, is that I know for sure I'm not a Palestinian or Nigerian child, but I can imagine myself a French iconoclast loudmouth. And the second, more sinister, is that nobody powerful benefits from focusing our attention on Boko Haram, whereas my list of beneficiaries of the Charlie Hebdo attack can effortlessly start listing European politicans (e.g. Cameron [re crypto] and Hollande).

Secundus. I read much talk of whether or not Islam is a "more violent" religion than "modern" Christianity. Pshaw. The violence doesn't come from religion, the violence comes from poverty and desperation and ego issues and little-to-lose and tribalism. Very few "Christians" (by which I include the non-religious great-great-grandchildren of Christians) lack for potable water or enough to eat, and most have pretty good security of person and property. It's cheap(er) to buy into civilization when civilization buys into you. As that Sacco cartoon says, "we can think about ... what it is about Muslims that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image".

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#149

Post by _nedR »

davexunit wrote: post #70
tomp wrote: post #4

> Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive. It's the first time I've seen something like this on Guardian; I don't even remember it on articles discussing rape, murder or such, which is usually where "trigger warning" applies. Personally, I find such trigger warnings, and especially "you might be offended" warnings, totally ridiculous. What about me? I find such wa…

Everyone has to walk on eggshells around Islam, or risk being labeled racist or "Islamaphobic".

Beg your pardon. I find the exact opposite as true. People today, are generally careful and sensitive about what they say about Jews or black people, because they don't want to be labelled as anti-semitic or racist. Muslims seems to be the only minority you can criticize and be politically correct.

Consider the following statement :

"Maybe most Jews are peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing zionist cancer they must be held responsible"

Is the above sentence racist? anti-semitic? Blood libel? Incitement to hatred and violence? Possibly prosecutable?

Well here is what Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corporation, the head of one of the largest media organisations in the world tweeted a few days back :

"Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible."

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#150

Post by kristofferR »

rikacomet wrote: post #95

First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam. But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wish…

Honestly, and it kinda hurts me to say it, but the belief that blasphemers should be punished is unfortunately a very reasonable interpretation of the Quran. It doesn't take any interpretation at all, it says directly that they should be slain in 33:57-61 for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy

Don't get me wrong, the Bible commands the death penalty for a lot of things too, like working on a Sunday for example.

Post reply on HN