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

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

#261

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:16 PM UTC

xcode_ wrote: post #115

jpgvm wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

> I think no religion preaches violence, including Islam.

Have you read the Book of Revelation?

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

#262

Post by codewritinfool » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:17 PM UTC

aNoob7000 wrote: post #121

[deleted] wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

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 would say, "Amen" but I'm afraid of offending anyone.

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

#263

Post by pohl » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:18 PM UTC

geographomics wrote: post #198

pohl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: i…

Religion might be better analogised to firmware - installed early in the lifecycle by the manufacturers, difficult to replace; most end users would not do so or even consider doing so. If we look at someone who is born into a religion, lives their life holding those religious beliefs, and dies as a member of that same religion - is it valid to assume that they could have separated themselves from their beliefs? Just…

If we look at someone who is born into a religion, lives their life holding those religious beliefs, and dies as a member of that same religion - is it valid to assume that they could have separated themselves from their beliefs?

Exercise — of both body and brain — is work. Not having done it does not mean one is unable to.

Many live entire lives without a taut muscle. Yet we know they could have lived differently.

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

#264

Post by big_astrocyte » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:20 PM UTC

It is not about Islam but about a school of thought which is not only 100% certain in its beliefs (Quran is the literal word of God) but also likes to impose it on others under the banner of "don't hurt our feelings". I've seen examples coming from Budhism (Burma-Sri Lanka), Hinduism (India), Sikhism (India), Christianity (UK-middle age Europe-African countries). People from even non-islamic religions regularly kill each other for hurting 'religious feelings'.

When someone 'hurts' your religious sentiments, you can't be sure whether it was done deliberately or for deeper reasons. I can see deep reasons in why those cartoons were published.

Anyone against free expression is kinda against science itself. Certain religions will never grow (the word of god is limited to Quran/Bible/Whatever) but science will keep growing. What happens when science ends up infringing on religious feelings? Will we be allowed to publish potential treatment for HIV found in a pig's liver in a sharia state? Even saying that "Charlie Hebdo" did something wrong is taking a step towards a world where science starts becoming bound. This sentiment can easily go out of hand in a matter of 100 years. A perfect example would be Pakistan. A supposedly liberal place 100 years ago ended up forcing its only nobel prize winning physicist into exile, defacing his grave and making sure more awesome scientists are not created. Because apparently, Dr. Abdus Salam (the nobel laureate) wasn't Muslim enough!! I wouldn't take even one step towards intolerance for the sake of our great-great grandchildren.

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

#265

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:20 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #66

[deleted] wrote: post #57

Earlier 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…

> I fail to see how the attacks have anything to do with racism. Islamophobia is not racism.

Muslims, particularly those in the US and Western Europe (i.e. we're not talking about Chechens), tend to be darker skinned on average. It may not be an entirely racist prejudice, but there's certainly often a racist element to it.

See also the term "urban", which in the US is frequently a dog-whistle term for "black people" despite there being plenty of whites in city downtowns.

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

#266

Post by jules » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:23 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…

The comment was most likely deleted by the person who posted it, right?

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

#267

Post by Tobu » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:23 PM UTC

jpgvm wrote: post #47

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…

Unfortunately the concept of having the right to be offended, but not the right not to be offended doesn't seem to have been explained to Muslims. Every other faith (and other large group of people) seems to have accepted it however.

Not really. I have some integrists (Catholics) in my family, and they took the trouble to forward e-mails explaining that they didn't really like Charlie Hebdo, because it wasn't respectful towards any religion. In fact, they don't think much of press freedom:

«freedom of expression and freedom of the press don't extend to insulting, showing contempt, blaspheming, trampling, mocking the faith or values of co-citizens». The justification: «insult is violence».

Possibly they are afraid of being mocked. Realizing that people didn't have to take (the idea of) god seriously was transformative for me.

Their email forward about Charlie Hebdo described a cartoon of pope benedict xvi «taking position on pedophilia» (sodomizing children), here's the drawing: http://culturebox.francetvinfo.fr/tendances/evenements/dessi... . The cartoon is not actually related to Charlie Hebdo, which goes to show they don't read it. That said, here's a drawing that's really be Charlie, lampooning the catholics for a hush-hush attitude to pedophilia: http://stripsjournal.canalblog.com/archives/2010/03/31/27376... . It's accurate: those well-to-do catholics I've talked to, including priests, reacted to the scandals strictly by being preoccupied with perception of the catholic church.

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

#268

Post by belorn » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:24 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…

> If there's a largish number of people for whom ... make life less stressful...

This kind of thinking, that society should accommodate a populations likes and dislikes, is why we get groups that want to forbid Mohammad cartoons and others in the same country that want to forbid religious clothes like Burqa. No matter the combination, forbid one, forbid both or neither, you will always end up with one or both groups being offended and wanting government to intervene.

The alternative as I see it is to not acknowledge the problem, making it a point that what ever people like or dislike is their own problem.

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

#269

Post by michaelt » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:24 PM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #102

mlrtime wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who will raise the bar? Ouch for the down-votes. When I say raise the bar, I don't mean to incite violence, I mean to say who else is going to take on the task that so little are willing to risk their lives for.

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…

  Why does the bar need raised? It's not a competition 
  to see who can piss off religious people the most.

Let's say in the future some other group gets upset at what journalists are saying. Maybe it's the scientologists, or KKK members, or animal rights activists, or hells angels, or anonymous.

They will ask themselves "What have people tried in the past in order to silence journalists, did it work, and can we do it ourselves?"

Then they will say "In the past people have firebombed offices and attacked journalists. Can we do that? Yes we can. Did it work?"

Society and journalists have to decide whether upset groups will say "Yes, it was effective at silencing journalists" or if they'll say "No, it was ineffective, in fact it made the situation worse".

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

#270

Post by nahiluhmot » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:24 PM UTC

esaym wrote: post #223

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.

That's a fair point, the article I quoted does not mention if these people were on the 'right' or not. However, by saying "far right", I was trying to imply that extremists from that side would carry out acts on Muslims, much like extremist Muslims attacking the Hebdo.

I assumed these attacks would come from the right because of a culture of Islamophobia that I've seen on places like Fox news, which I consider to be a far right media outlet. For example:

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7533159/fox-news-pirro-rant http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-are... http://www.salon.com/2014/08/20/foxs_andrea_tantaros_you_sol...