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

Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 489 posts

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

#211

Post by q4814 »

ilitirit wrote: post #100
chroma wrote: post #32

The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it The Qur'an to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their ow…

> real satire "Real" satire of Islamic culture has been performed for decades. For the most part, you don't have to include the image of Mohammed for every statement you want to make of Islam. However, I do agree that you should be allowed to do so without fear of violent reprisal. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in at the moment. It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this iss…

> It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue.

It's only been 1,500 years. Lets give them a little more time mmm-k?

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

#212

Post by briandear »

Shivetya wrote: post #129
replax wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While what you said is probably true for obvious reasons, also remember that those cartoons probably offended around 1.5bn people. Seeing that three people decided to react violently after several years of the paper being put out weekly, it is fairly safe to say that this could be described as a clash of the extreme extremists (of whom there are very few). I am pretty sure the outrage against anti-Semitic jokes would…

could have offended, if they even saw them. The issue is, how much offense was their really. If Islam is like any other religion there is a significant number who just don't care. They don't want to be bothered. What we have here is a bunch of extremist trying to incite violence against their faith in order to create more recruits by demonstrating oppression. It does not matter that their actions caused it, it only m…

CH only printed about 30,000 copies a week. It was just a convenient proxy. I actually live in France and I've never read CH. However, tomorrow morning when the new issue hits the newsstands, I will be first in line. I'm buying the paper not because I care about the content, but because I care about the writers' ability to express their ideas freely and without fear of being shot in the face.

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

#213

Post by reitanqild »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #87
lovelearning wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the upvote. If the downvotes were due to religious reasons, then I have to admit it is rather sad to see them on HN. On the other hand, if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them. From the link and history of the cartoons, I've reached the rather odd conclusion that anyone named "Mahomet" or "Muhammad" in a cartoon is automatically assumed to be the prophet Muhammad.

> 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?

I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction, less than a flag. Not every comment here is gold to be honest. They don't need to be eliminated but they should be grey as a signal to new readers. At least that is how I view the ones I receive.

As has been pointed out by many sometimes it is hard to figure out why you have been downvoted. I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote.

Also I have a feeling some people who definitely don't understand HN culture has got downvote privilege over the last 6-18 months. But I don't have data for that. Comment before downvote would expose those.

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

#214

Post by rikacomet »

Yoric wrote: post #180
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…

> Yet, if someone does want to amuse himself or exercise his liberty knowing that it is something that hurts us, we simply have to ignore him. Things should not go further than that. I have heard this a few time since the attacks on Charlie, and that's very nice to hear. I believe that this was also the point made by Charlie with their first cover on Muhamad (which shows Muhamad saying, roughly « Having stupid follow…

No learning Arabic is not compulsory, though reading the Quran is. There are lot of translations of Quran, including in English.

People are not aware as such because of similar reasons, as you may not know the whole of constitution that governs you. It takes time and effort.

Regarding Nasruddin, there are thousands of stories by different authors for all type of audience, if you look a bit more, you will find one with satire.

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

#215

Post by amirmc »

_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…

And here's the tweet itself. https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/553734788881076225

I'm pretty sure that if he'd said this about Jews, it would not have had 7k retweets and he'd also have been forced to 'apologise'.

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

#216

Post by MrScruff »

replax wrote: post #118
chroma wrote: post #32

The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it The Qur'an to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their ow…

While what you said is probably true for obvious reasons, also remember that those cartoons probably offended around 1.5bn people. Seeing that three people decided to react violently after several years of the paper being put out weekly, it is fairly safe to say that this could be described as a clash of the extreme extremists (of whom there are very few). I am pretty sure the outrage against anti-Semitic jokes would…

I wouldn't call someone drawing pictures an 'extreme extremist'. I would call someone who murders people with an assault rifle an 'extreme extremist'.

It's the equivalent of me saying something insulting about your mother, and you responding by beating me to death. There is no useful comparison to be made.

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

#217

Post by misnome »

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...

Right, I was a bit disappointed that the BBC had two separate articles on the cover, but neither included a picture of it.

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

#218

Post by easytiger »

chroma wrote: post #32

The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it The Qur'an to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their ow…

All irrelevant. How is any of this relevant? The extrapolation of your logic is that we should legislate against offending Muslims. That is the only outcome of your thought process.

> Insurers wouldn't accept standard policies.

No insurance policy I know will pay out for events of terrorism unless specifically negotiated (and i have done a few).

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

#219

Post by jackgavigan »

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…

> Personally, I find such trigger warnings, and especially "you might be offended" warnings, totally ridiculous.

Iromically, The Guardian is based on the UK, which has laws that prohibit sending "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"[1].

Here is an example of a successful prosecution under said law: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828

1: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

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

#220

Post by krig »

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?

One reason would be that the very idea of religion is offensive to me. That someone else, without evidence, says not only that they know how the universe came to be but that they have direct contact with the divine creator who tells them how all people should live their lives, is an offensive idea to me!

How do we resolve this? The only solution is for at least one of us to ignore the offense caused by the other, or we cannot live together in society.

Post reply on HN