Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by xcode_ » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

xcode_ wrote: post #128

xcode_ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

if HN as a community cannot accept a simple, logical and apparently non-offending statement against christianity. Then it really needs to declare it as a policy, and endorse Islamic bashing officially!

@throwaway90446: Well I'll be more happy to accept this, if anyone here had quoted any verse from Quran (taken with context). But sadly people believe what they have heard, without doing much research.

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

#202

Post by philh » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

obituary_latte wrote: post #130

philh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility How so? If an article says "trigger warning: (rape/Mohammed/spiders/flashing lights)", then people who don't want to be exposed to those things (e.g. due to PTSD, religion, phobias, epilepsy - or simply because it upsets them and they don't particularly want to be upset right now) can choose not to read it. Ho…

I think the disparity here is that the "trigger warning" is warning that there's a possibility someone's feelings might be hurt which is ridiculous. If we start down that path, where do we draw the line? Please edit your post to include a trigger warning: comparing epilepsy and religious belief may insult some people. See? Absurd.

I care about people's feelings. I agree that there's probably a qualitative difference between offending someone and causing them to have a seizure. But I'd still prefer not to offend them, all else being equal, and this would be true even if there was no such thing as epilepsy.

There's no hard line. We use our best judgement, based on what we know of our audience.

However, I will note one counterargument that I find compelling, which is utility monsters. If we reward people for getting upset, that gives them an incentive to get more upset. I don't know the best way to deal with this, but I suspect that "no trigger warnings" is not optimal.

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

#203

Post by palmer_eldritch » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #3

Speaking on Today, [Omer el-Hamdoon, president of the Muslim Association of Britain] said causing offence “just for the purpose of offending” was not freedom of speech. Distancing yourself from the extremists [FAIL]

Especially since Charlie Hebdo's goal has never been to offend "just for the purpose of offending".

Their comics are for their readers. For most of their history (before the internet) only the few people who bought it read it and their drawings didn't make the news even if most of them would've been very offensive to some. They try to convey something insightful in an humoristic way, usually in a pretty unflattering way for the depicted. That's what satire means.

If they end up making pictures about islam these days, it's because islam hits the news much more than it did in Hara Kiri's days. Their drawings and articles always followed the news.

And when YOU hit the news because some people can't take a joke, you keep following the news and respond in your next issue: "please stop being so stupid" in an humoristic and unflattering way for the depicted.

If you can't depict the world around you in a funny way, usually unflattering to the depicted because the depicted might be offended, then you can't do satire. At least have the guts to say it in plain words: "I'm all for free speech except when stuff I hold dear are being caricatured". Which means you don't want free speech because anyone can then claim they're offended by anything.

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

#204

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

philh wrote: post #77

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…

> I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility How so? If an article says "trigger warning: (rape/Mohammed/spiders/flashing lights)", then people who don't want to be exposed to those things (e.g. due to PTSD, religion, phobias, epilepsy - or simply because it upsets them and they don't particularly want to be upset right now) can choose not to read it. Ho…

For epilepsy we have well-justified reason for warnings. For all the other things you mentioned, trigger warnings are wrong approach. What people tasked to cure PTSD will tell you, is that you want constant exposure to the stimuli until your brain starts to ignore it, and not constant evasion.

Trigger warnings are also harmful because they legitimize the idea that you can be offended about pretty much anything you like and therefore such content should not be published. It enables people to behave like children, instead of grownups. Mature people don't get offended because someone says something they don't agree with.

EDIT: What I mean is the danger of those utility monsters you just referred to downthread.

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

#205

Post by mathetic » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

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…

As a an atheist, who spent nearly all of his life in a country with 99% Muslim population, I do not understand how people who live in such society and got an education defend the religion.

>> First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam.

First of all, this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Islam, after Christianity, has the bloodiest history we know. The only reason it is the second biggest religion is because it expanded by violent conquers. Even in the off chance that the host is being decent, they imposed so much regulations on non-Muslims that they would end up converting. So this is exactly what Islam is.

>> On the other hand, Religion is a personal affair.

No one who has laid their eyes on Qur'an can say that. It is very explicit about how you need to treat non-Muslims. I don't know where the entire notion of "personal affair" came from.

>> But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much.

Who says so? Who is the divine power that decides on what satire is too much in the absolute scare?

>> Besides the additional fact, that impersonation/impersonification of Prophet Muhammad is highly condemned in Islam.

It is free in the Western world for women not to wear head scarves, drive and have sex with whoever they want, by extension of this logic would it be okay for woman to go to Saudi Arabia and do any of these things?

>> Let us understand each others liberties as well as sensitivities, so that by standing firm together, we will all make a better society, both in France and the World.

No, you don't get it. Objectively France is the better society here. I am half-french and I can criticise France on various issues for many hours but it is insulting to do a comparison between France and a "serious" Muslim country.

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

#206

Post by Tobu » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

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".

It's a worthwhile effort. If you just go with the first thing that goes through your head, you're probably repeating someone else's meme.

It's a shitty thing to equate islamic terrorists (Al-Qaeda, in this case) with Islam. Al Qaeda kills eight times more muslism than non-muslims: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/surprising-study-o...

And Daeh is killing muslims and blowing up mosques: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-grue...

The idea that this is a clash of civilisations, rather than terrorists seeking to control co-religionists, is designed to drive both sides to their respective extremists.

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

#207

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:55 PM UTC

rikacomet wrote: post #173

jacquesm wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much. Who cares about sensitivities once you cross into satire. You're effectively arguing that the people that got shot were murdered because 'the level of satire' was too high. What hurts you is imaginary, killing people is real. Identifying with a religion to the point that someone insulting your imaginary friend causes a person to commit acts in the real…

I'm effectively arguing that Muslims are highly offended because we have the liberty to be so for this case. Yet that doesn't qualify as enough to hurt someone, and that is why I said both.

> I'm effectively arguing that Muslims are highly offended because we have the liberty to be so for this case.

Muslims are highly offended because they choose to identify with their religion in a way that is not considered normal by non-muslims.

> Yet that doesn't qualify as enough to hurt someone, and that is why I said both.

Then stop saying things like 'the satire was perhaps too much'. There will always be people for who the satire was too much so your position would put an end to satire.

In my view the satire was still way too little.

Muslims being offended at stuff like this is bad for Islam as a religion.

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

#208

Post by philh » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:56 PM UTC

kruczek wrote: post #169

philh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility How so? If an article says "trigger warning: (rape/Mohammed/spiders/flashing lights)", then people who don't want to be exposed to those things (e.g. due to PTSD, religion, phobias, epilepsy - or simply because it upsets them and they don't particularly want to be upset right now) can choose not to read it. Ho…

> If there's a largish number of people for whom "trigger warning: trigger warnings" would actually make life less stressful, then I'd endorse people including that warning. Good point. However people keep saying that it's all about extremists, not the general population of Islamists, therefore I would also think that (by definition) that population of extremists (who would be offended by such pictures) is not very l…

Extremists have an extreme response, but that doesn't mean they're the only ones who get offended.

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

#209

Post by dhimes » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:56 PM UTC

xcode_ wrote: post #128

xcode_ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

if HN as a community cannot accept a simple, logical and apparently non-offending statement against christianity. Then it really needs to declare it as a policy, and endorse Islamic bashing officially!

I suspect the downvoting will recover. You point is fairly made and non-offensive (and IMO correct). You and mercurial basically agree.

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

#210

Post by tomp » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:56 PM UTC

_nedR wrote: post #149

davexunit wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 zio…

To be fair, I think you're pretty free to criticize the more extremist aspects of Judaism, such as circumcision (yes, they scream "antisemitism", but nobody takes them seriously), the ultra-orthodox political campaigns in Israel (e.g. that men and women should walk on opposite sidewalks). Also, they don't seem to have as many idiotic rules as Muslims (no depictions of Yahweh? or at least I don't know about them, and they take them much less seriously).