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

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

#221

Post by philh » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:59 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #204

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…

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 li…

> 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.

From http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/30/the-wonderful-thing-abo... :

YOU DO NOT GIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY TO PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

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

#222

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 1:59 PM UTC

themartorana wrote: post #90

davexunit wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I agree. People need to understand that when almost every terrorist attack and almost every ongoing war, slaughter, massacre, etc., has "radical Islam" on one side of it, it's difficult to see that those elements represent only a tiny fraction of Muslims. Maybe truly radical elements are in fact the tiniest sliver, but I'd appreciate some leeway for those struggling to understand how that sliver is so intimately invo…

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by esaym » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

nahiluhmot wrote: post #75

I'm nervous about the response that these attacks will conjure from the far right. There have already been a good deal of attempts on the lives of innocent Muslims [1] since the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and I find it very concerning that I have heard none of this from the national/international news media. Would these not as well be considered acts of terrorism? Why not report on them? Doing so would seem to unfairly…

How do you know those attacks were done by the 'right'? What you have done is no different than people saying all "Muslims are terrorists".. Yet you get upvotes.

People that harm people have one thing in common. It is not the 'right' or religion. They are loony and mis-guided, and have their priorities severely out of place. Plain and simple.

Such polarization will never lead to any kind of peace.

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

#224

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:00 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…

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

Pretending Islam is one single thing seems to be part of the problem.

Are the IS fighters following Islam? Were the Hebdo shooters? Or are you?

All would answer yes but clearly are very different, conflicting philosophies.

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

#225

Post by chriswarbo » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

TomGullen wrote: post #104

tomp wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like we all believe that racism is bad, and racist comments/opinions should be discouraged, then why can't we respect each other's religion? Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. You can choose your religion (or, in general, what you believe in). I think adults who believe in the existence of unicorns are insane. If you don't find that wrong/offensive, I don't see why the same reasoning couldn't be app…

> You can choose your religion I don't know... can you? It's not like picking your favourite bread in the super market, from a religious persons POV they may of: - Been brought up in the environment - External pressures from relatives/society - In some cases institutionalised to their religion - Felt some strong emotional connection to the religion - Experienced some kind of religious experience that binds them to th…

> I don't know... can you?

Yes. You're listing reasons why people might choose to join/stick-with a religion. The fact that there are (social/psychological) arguments for or against doesn't mean it's not a choice. The fact that it may require courage to choose the unorthodox option doesn't mean it's not a choice.

There's also a distinction between what someone believes and what they appear to believe. Many people go through the motions for the social acceptance, but don't believe any of it.

> saying people are just picking and choosing isn't fair or accurate and shows perhaps a lack of understanding about the subject matter

I agree with this, but I don't think anyone's saying that religion is a "pick and choose" affair. Most religious people were indoctrinated into their particular religion, but as independent adults they can still choose whether to continue with their religion, abandon it or switch to another one.

It would be nice if religion truly were a case of "pick and choose", eg. as a child. At least that way, children would see that there are alternatives, and that their parent's religion isn't irrefutable.

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

#226

Post by tomp » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #194

tomp wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like we all believe that racism is bad, and racist comments/opinions should be discouraged, then why can't we respect each other's religion? Racism is bad, because you can't choose your race. You can choose your religion (or, in general, what you believe in). I think adults who believe in the existence of unicorns are insane. If you don't find that wrong/offensive, I don't see why the same reasoning couldn't be app…

Unicorns exist. I have seen one. Of course, I can't prove it to you, but then, you can't prove to me that you exist.

They might as well exist, but based on my prior estimates of probabilities of different events, and Bayesian reasoning, I conclude that it's much more likely that you're insane than that you've actually seen a unicorn (I don't discard the existence of unicorns entirely, I just consider it very improbable).

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

#227

Post by thret » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

fafner wrote: post #48

Simp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western christianity didn't leave all violence behind, see for example anti-abortion violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_S...

I think neals meant "modern" Christianity, as in what has become of Christianity thanks to the age of reason. This excludes some Western (especially US) branches of Christianity.

Christianity was pacifist from the beginning. Jesus was all about non-violence:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. - Matthew 5:38-39 ESV

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

#228

Post by ameen » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:01 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".

Moreso than Jews & Judaism?

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

#229

Post by jules » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:01 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #159

jules wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what's so good about this. It's merely an uninsightful and flawed analogy with a deeply wrong conclusion. He completely misjudges Charlie Hebdo and the cultural context.

> It's merely an uninsightful and flawed analogy with a deeply wrong conclusion. How so?

Lets count some ways:

- Religion is different than race, because race is something that a person is born with and cannot possibly change.

- He tries to make deliberately offensive panels that are supposed to provoke the same reaction in people as Charlie Hebdo's comics supposedly provoke in muslims, but he falls short by a long shot. The reaction to his deliberately offensive panels is "meh", not outrage, which completely undermines his point.

- He depicts Charlie Hebdo as a magazine that makes fun of certain groups by maximally offending them without any satirical value. This is incorrect. When you place them in their cultural context you see that their comics are actually very left wing and sure they are against religion (any form), but also against racism, islamophobia, classism, xenophobia, etc. When you are outside the culture you may misinterpret the comics if you take them at face value. This isn't a 'lets make fun of muslims' magazine.

- Even if it were true that Charlie Hebdo was just trying to offend people, his implication that it's then not worthy and we should rather appease the offended groups is still wrong. Free speech as long as you like what is said is not free speech.

- His comic is patronising ordinary muslims, as if the average muslim can't handle satire and needs to be protected from it, while people from other religions can handle it.

I could go on...

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

#230

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:02 PM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #171

_nedR wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe most Americans are peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing military-industrialist cancer they must be held responsible.

Maybe most Kerbals are safety-conscious, but until they recognize and strut up their growing pile of solid rocket boosters at the launchpad they must be held responsible...

... oh wait, I forgot it's not Reddit.