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

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 284 posts

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#131

Post by justsee »

iSnow wrote: post #115
justsee wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But failing to undertake a proper root cause analysis is harmful to your stated aims. You appear to believe that a resurgent radical Islam is primarily due to the rise of wealthy Arab states, and yet these states are aligned to the West, armed by the West, and also suppress the same radical elements you wish to neutralize domestically. A proper root cause analysis would reveal that violent military intervention coupl…

>A proper root cause analysis would reveal that violent military intervention coupled with Western political soundbites (which have a modern crusades theme to them) are the real factors responsible for radicalizing elements of Middle Eastern society. Oh please. A proper root cause analysis is different from blaming everything on the West. It would have to include the idea that the current cultural clash is with an ex…

> Oh please. A proper root cause analysis is different from blaming everything on the West.

That's another rule I forgot to mention:

5. Anyone pointing out the clear history of repeated violent actions by X against Y shall be labelled a: Y sympathiser, "blame-the-X" bleeding-heart liberal, anti-X, etc

> It would have to include the idea that the current cultural clash is with an extremely violent religion as can be shown by its teachings.

You seem to hold a Western stereotype of Islam[1]. How can you accept this stereotype and at the same time bristle with indignation when someone points out that the West is a collection of extremely violent superpowers, as shown by the West's history of constant war and invasion?

What metrics do we use to calculate which 'side' is more violent? Number of people killed, and number of countries invaded? On that basis the West is clearly far more violent, isn't it?

> 9/11 as the showcase of the clash between the West and radical Muslims was planned by a descendant of a rich Saudi family. There were not many poor and underprivileged amongst those plane hijackers.

Injustice is oxygen for radicals at every strata of society, so my point is that if you serve your subjugated people more justice and less injustice, you are getting increased stability and security in return. It's a good trade for people like w1ntermute who are satisfied with their global status and not troubled by questions involving morality and ethics.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence#Western_ster...

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#132

Post by dmorgan »

w1ntermute wrote: post #14
javajosh wrote: post #9

Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work . And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.…

> Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't. What sets the Arabs…

>This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't.

Put this way, it's even more stupid. It's as if people go about "hating the west" for no reason (or because their "religion tells them so", which is a Glenn Beck level argument).

A thing called colonialism did exist. Some hundred million people were killed in invasions and wars and while fighting for their freedom, and some 2 billion people were living under foreign occupation.

And then you had a thing called post-colonialism, that does exist. With hundreds of interventions and resource-grubbing all over the world. With so called "banana republics" set up. And with countries thousands of miles away of some areas, have the audacity to believe they have "strategic interests" in those areas, and that it gives them the right to intervene, get their resources for cheap, place puppet governments, etc. You know, like some country in the American continent controlling Philippines or killing people in Vietnam.

What sets the Arabs apart is their vast oil riches. Without that, they wouldn't have the money or power to do anything to the West.

Arabs, as in "arab states" could not care less about "doing anything to the west". What sets those people apart is indeed their vast oil riches, that had provoked unprecedented resource-grubbing, puppet government establishment and invasions western powers.

Does anyone imagine what a foreign power invading the US would mean to the US people, and under some BS pretext at that? But invading Iraq under the BS pretext of WMDs, wrecking the country in the process, killing hundreds of thousands, taking control of the oil and leaving them in a state of civil war by playing into the competing tribal and religious interests, is somehow "normal", because they are "arabs".

So, the people there have a lot of reasons to "blame the west". It's not like they have any spectacular resources, either. WWII era guns and ammo, and cheaply made stuff, while the "west" kills them with drones and 21st century military technology.

>The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power.

Actually they had a huge empire, including parts of Europe, even before the crude oil gained relevance.

The west managed to turn them to "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" precisely when it wanted to get ahold of cheap labour and later the crude oil.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#133

Post by kenbot »

milfot wrote: post #57
spindritf wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'. No need to rewrite anything, it's both their hostility and philosophical differences that scare us. Overcoming that fear and reaffirming our values is the basis for one of the most important texts in the European culture — The Song of Roland. EDIT: I do know what you mean and I'm sorry but those are just feel-good platitudes. West quite obviously is…

At this risk of getting this all out of order (since you edited rather than replying).. The west is RUN by militant christians (and militant jews and militant atheists etc). They use armies to inflict their particular brand of extremism. They killed about a million iraquis. They murder people in cold blood by dropping missiles from drones from 50,000 ft up. Pretty fucking extreme if you ask me.

This is a commonly made argument, but it's silly. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were declared by the secular government of a secular state for geopolitical reasons. Most of the individuals are Christian, but the war and tactics have nothing whatsoever to do with Christian doctrine or motivations.

The "Muslim militants" under discussion launch attacks for specifically Muslim motives, with carefully constructed justifications cross-referenced to precise verses from the Koran and Hadiths.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#134

Post by aes256 »

bobsy wrote: post #107

What concerns me especially in Britain is the amount of times the police are getting involved in what appear to be free speech cases. In Britain 2 police officers were killed. The same day a guy wrote on his t-shirt something to the effect of "kill pigs for fun hahahaah." This is a stupid thing to do. I would have thought the police might confiscate his t-shirt. Nope, that wouldn't have been sufficient. He got 4 mont…

In addition to the cases you mention, in the past month alone we have also had a man given a community sentence for posting that British soldiers in Afghanistan "should die and go to hell", and a man arrested for creating a Facebook group praising the alleged killer of the two police officers in Greater Manchester.

These all come under the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits any "message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"

It's stupid puritanistic legislation and it needs to be repealed.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#135

Post by justsee »

mseebach2 wrote: post #126
justsee wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But failing to undertake a proper root cause analysis is harmful to your stated aims. You appear to believe that a resurgent radical Islam is primarily due to the rise of wealthy Arab states, and yet these states are aligned to the West, armed by the West, and also suppress the same radical elements you wish to neutralize domestically. A proper root cause analysis would reveal that violent military intervention coupl…

> You appear to believe that a resurgent radical Islam is primarily due to the rise of wealthy Arab states, and yet these states are aligned to the West, armed by the West, and also suppress the same radical elements you wish to neutralize domestically. To add a touch of concreteness, according to "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" by Lawrence Wright (which I cannot recommend enough if you're interest…

In relation to recently-enriched Arab states, w1ntermute stated that: "Without that, they wouldn't have the money or power to do anything to the West". He appears to think that well-funded Arab states are directly supporting radical Islam - my response was directed at that wrong notion, because as you note those states are actively involved in suppression of radicals.

US backing of oppressive regimes in the region is certainly an injustice that fuels radicalization of citizens in those countries.

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll have a look at it.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#137

Post by beaker52 »

The solution is quite simple to achieve individually, but near impossible to get everyone to achieve at once.

Stop being insulted. Stop being offended. Let things go. Life is too short for it.

If you're not offended, it doesn't matter what people say. Then we can all say what we like and no-one has to worry.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#138

Post by subsystem »

bobsy wrote: post #107

What concerns me especially in Britain is the amount of times the police are getting involved in what appear to be free speech cases. In Britain 2 police officers were killed. The same day a guy wrote on his t-shirt something to the effect of "kill pigs for fun hahahaah." This is a stupid thing to do. I would have thought the police might confiscate his t-shirt. Nope, that wouldn't have been sufficient. He got 4 mont…

Jenny Holzer said it best http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/exhibitions/radicalism/holzer.s...

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#139

Post by ucee054 »

w1ntermute wrote: post #14
javajosh wrote: post #9

Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work . And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.…

> Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't. What sets the Arabs…

The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this.

The root cause would be the West arming and training militant Islam.

Back in the day, there was the Caliphate, which was the government of Turkey and Egypt, and the Salafis, Wahhabis and Saudis, who were the militants.

The Caliphate sent a huge army to wipe out the extremists and chase the survivors into the desert.

Later, the West thought it would be clever to bring the extremists back to take over Pakistan (google for "Deobandi") and Arabia (which is why it is called Saudi Arabia now).

Then, they thought it would be really clever to give them Stinger missiles to piss off the Russians (see "Rambo 3"). Saudis + help from Ronald Reagan = AlQaeda.

The West are still arming the extremists (google for "Jundullah"). They think it's a really clever way to piss off the governments in Syria and Iran.

Apparently nothing has been learned from 911.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#140

Post by meaty »

aes256 wrote: post #134
bobsy wrote: post #107

What concerns me especially in Britain is the amount of times the police are getting involved in what appear to be free speech cases. In Britain 2 police officers were killed. The same day a guy wrote on his t-shirt something to the effect of "kill pigs for fun hahahaah." This is a stupid thing to do. I would have thought the police might confiscate his t-shirt. Nope, that wouldn't have been sufficient. He got 4 mont…

In addition to the cases you mention, in the past month alone we have also had a man given a community sentence for posting that British soldiers in Afghanistan "should die and go to hell", and a man arrested for creating a Facebook group praising the alleged killer of the two police officers in Greater Manchester. These all come under the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits any "message or other matter that is…

Some more nooses to hang ourselves with here:

http://www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/law/malcomm.htm

Most of this legislation came in under "think of the children" type laws to prevent critical discussion of the warmongering taking place in the last couple of decades (since just before the Gulf War).

It's not puritanism, as at least that had some moral basis. This is plain totalitarianism under a fascist banner. The associated forms of indoctrination and the inevitable propaganda makes people think they should be offended when they see this as "it must be bad", resulting in the cycle continuing.

Most people aren't offended by this sort of thing - they are afraid to have a potentially different opinion and therefore conform.

Editing to add: in my youth I called a policeman a "fascist cunt" and was told off. I was a) a couple of decades early and b) punished appropriately.

Post reply on HN