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

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

#231

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

Nursie wrote: post #224

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.

If you can't believe either me or them, then you surely can try to find out what Islam is yourself right? Best help is self help! To start looking, pick up a genuine English Translation of Quran.

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

#232

Post by unclebucknasty » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:03 PM UTC

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".

Users do push comments down by pushing others up. If we are trying to surface interesting content, then what more do we need?

And, why should your simple personal disagreement result in a comment being pushed down unless what we want is groupthink instead of earnest discussion?

The proper thing to do, if one cares enough to express disagreement, is to explain why he/she disagrees.

Then, there's the fact that downvotes negate one's "karma score", as if to say, "I disagree. I will take one of your gold-star stickers".

It's really stupid and juvenile. But, I hope you will continue downvoting me here. The irony is just too delicious.

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

#233

Post by jholman » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:03 PM UTC

mxfh wrote: post #110

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/...

While I respect Secco and his work as well it's also wrong and out of context in some regards. Ruben Bolling: http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2015/01/in-...

I'd never heard of CH a week ago, and Bolling's interpretation of CH's cartooning may be more accurate than Secco's, and it was an interesting perspective.

But I think that Bolling's conclusions are wrong, except perhaps when he rebuts Secco's use of the word "vapid".

Bolling says that the only reasonable reaction to the murders is to defend free speech. No. Defending free speech is necessary, but it's not at all clear that it's sufficient. Freedom of the press isn't the only issue here.

There are also issues of what to do about violence/security, what to do about racism, what to do about freedom of religion, etc. Those issues aren't any more important post-murder, but they were important before and they still are, and this is an opportunity to put some eyes on them.

I don't interpret Sacco's piece as saying "CH is unworthy of our defense". I interpret it as saying "Let's defend CH, but also notice that they were missing the point, here's the point". Bolling argues that CH wasn't missing the point. But Sacco's proposal for where our greatest attention should lie is still a good proposal.

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

#234

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:04 PM UTC

Joeboy wrote: post #190

aNoob7000 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want. There should be no topic off limits when it comes to satire and public commentary. The minute we start making exceptions then we start losing control of the conversation/discussion to those that want to control what can and cannot be said. As a Catholic, I watched many cartoons lampooning our priests, pope, and Jesu…

> I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want. I can't see that response anymore because HN doesn't believe in freedom of speech, but I do find the question of the killers' motives very interesting. The general reaction seems to be to straightforwardly accept the idea that it was a violent, dumb reprisal over cartoons they saw as blasphemous. I can't help but…

I do share this view. People often forgot that terrorism is not about body count - deaths are only collateral damage, means to an end which is to influence a population through fear.

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

#235

Post by k-mcgrady » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:04 PM UTC

jtms wrote: post #175

k-mcgrady wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the bar need raised? It's not a competition to see who can piss off religious people the most. The point of the cartoons is to convey a message. Just take a look at the new Charlie Hebdo cover for example. They could have acted in revenge and really, really mocked Islam - and it sounds like that's what you would have done. Instead they created something quite beautiful while still exercising their right to f…

Bad ideas deserve to be mocked.

Why? To make you feel smart or better than someone else? If there is an idea you think is bad and you want the other person to realise it is bad mocking it is a stupid way to go about that. Charlie Hebdo took ideas it thought were bad and didn't simply mock them but used satire and cartoons to explain why they were bad or ridiculous in a humorous way.

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

#236

Post by marrs » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:04 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…

The reaction of committing murder is all about extremists. I think there are plenty of Moslems who would find the iconography uncomfortable viewing. It just goes against the grain.

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

#237

Post by travisp » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:05 PM UTC

ddebernardy wrote: post #37

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…

To the Guardian's credit, they did actually publish the cover. As did Libération in France. US news outlets, as well as some UK outlets, and certainly many more elsewhere including France, cannot be said to have done as much, e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/arts/international/charlie... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1134...

Several US news outlets did, the biggest being the WSJ:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/charlie-hebdo-puts-muhammad-on-c...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/12/hayat-bo...

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-charlie-hebdo-cove...

http://chicago.suntimes.com/nationworld/7/71/286127/charlie-...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/01/12...

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

#238

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:07 PM UTC

philh wrote: post #221

TeMPOraL wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I somehow missed that article. After skimming the first few paragraphs I still sort of disagree with Scott, but I'm going to read it carefully. Scott has really good arguments and reasoning in his writings, so I expect it to influence my opinion on the subject.

Big thanks for the link.

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

#239

Post by orbifold » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

mercurial wrote: post #136

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?

Well, people get what they want to hear/read out of religion. Take the old testament, you have enough instances of God-sanctioned large-scale murder to justify most of anything. Some groups have taken inspiration from it, while others have had a completely pacifist outlook. No religion is exempt from that.

At least for Christians what counts most are the teachings of Jesus and apart from a few predictions of purgatory of the wicked the gospels preach peacefulness and non-violence. Of course when Jahwe was just a tribal god, they had to invent lots of stories on how he was much more powerful than other gods, who didn't even exist because there was only one god and it was theirs.

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

#240

Post by Yoric » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

rikacomet wrote: post #158

k-mcgrady wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much." There are NO excuses for what happened. None. Just because a certain group of people (no matter who they are) believe something doesn't mean the rest of the world should not offend that belief because some people might not like it. It doesn't matter if that belief is Islam, Judaism, Scientology, or a belief in pigs that fly. I have the right to make…

The liberty to express yourself is not the only liberty in the world. I, You and All of Us have the liberty to be offended as well. The point is: -what to do if you are offended? To which I say simply ignore it happened. -why offend someone in the first place?

> -why offend someone in the first place?

To this, there is a simple historical explanation: because that's, in practice, how France gained its freedom. Sure, there was the French Revolution, but it took more than one century before the Catholic Church stopped being the main power in France, before it became acceptable to be agnostic, atheist, protestant, muslim or jew in France. The main fight took place in the written press, largely through caricatures, by showing irreverence to the Catholic Church. It is only through this that France eventually became a non-religious republic, in 1905.

In other words, this kind of Free Speech and irreverence is deeply ingrained in French history, political correctness be damned. Charlie was created in part in defiance to the hero worship towards General De Gaulle, and has been irreverent towards every power figure ever since.