Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.
*insert thumbs-up dude*
welp, if the reprinting of the dutch cartoon was offensive enough to get someone to firebomb the CH offices in 2011, I would personally think I wouldn't keep poking that particular bear.
From my seat, if they continue to poke at this, then next time(there will be a next time) I will have zero empathy or sympathy.
Mickeyrat, yours is one of the voices I most respect on this board. I always appreciate your takes and insight, even when we disagree. Especially when we disagree. For that reason I'm troubled by the quote above. It reads like you are absolutely blaming the victim for what happened in Paris. Other posters have claimed in this thread that no one here is doing that, yet this quote seems to be proof positive that some are. "Poking the bear" is the reason why these attacks happened? If they continue to poke the bear, and another group of artists are slaughtered, you will have no empathy or sympathy?
Am I misreading what you have intended here?
as I said, after being firebombed in 2011, they apparently didnt get the message that some were willing to kill over it. instead of taking that into consideration they kept up. Now with 12 dead , its somehow become about freedom of speech. I empathize with the families of those killed.I would do so for the families of those killed in the future. But freedom of speech not only comes with responsibilities it comes with accountability. MY preference would be that no one buys this magazine. Others will seek blood. Blood is the price they will pay for conitnuing. They have been spoiling for a fight and now they have gotten it. I fail to se how no matter what happens I should see soemone ppicking a fight as a victim when they get their ass handed to them.
What I reference is this specific magazine. Not some other group of writers/cartoonists.
Finally I want to say I appreciate your kind words about me.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
When did printing cartoons become bullying? Having your office firebombed is being bullied. Murdering 12 cartoonists is bullying. Printing cartoons is not bullying.
When did everyone become so thin skinned?
content. all about the content. these guys have no shame. Claiming the kidnapped Nigerian girls are welfare queens? What idea is that advancing? I would surely like to know.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I imagine we will start seeing articles soon that assert such involvement by western intelligence, but I doubt we will ever reach a consensus that the charges have been "proven".
what we ARE seeing is several Euro countries all the sudden spoiling plots.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I sometimes wonder what opinions would be shared of it were proven that one of these attacks was coordinated or coerced by western intelligence. Where would that leave the people who scream about free speech and call for violent retribution?
I was imagining a similar scenario, Drowned Out. It's difficult to think that this could happen and I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but it is an interesting question to ponder.
Why is it difficult to think it could happen? There are many examples of similar scenarios that have been verified and admitted to by western powers...conspiracies? Yes. Theories? No.
No you're right, it's not difficult to think that it could happen, it's difficult and unsettling to think that maybe it did happen. Many theories surrounding conspiracies have been debunked... but of course, not all. That is unsettling.
Now, folks, here's something that I've been hesitant to mention but I'll throw it out there because I'm curious as to whether or not this makes sense:
Not too many years ago, many Americans were bashing the French because of France's opposition to the invasion of Iraq. We even went so far as to rename "French Fries"- "Freedom Fries". For some people here, everything French was evil.
So this afternoon, while I was rummaging around in a local thrift store, the Rush Limbaugh show was being aired on that stores radio (always nice to have some entertainment going while shopping). The commentators were practically falling all over themselves talking about how we really need to rally to support the French people in the wake of the Charlie Hebo shootings.
Now look, don't get me wrong. I'm NOT saying we should condone the shooting or that we should not have compassion for the French people. What I am questioning is why some segments of our population seem to be rather fickle when it comes to running the gamut from Franceophobia to Frenchophilia.
Is this a stretch?
It's all about politics and what stance serves the collective american agenda. When france balked at the US's request for help, all of a sudden france was public enemy #2. Now that the french have been attacked by public enemy #1, they are now public little brother #1.
I sometimes wonder what opinions would be shared of it were proven that one of these attacks was coordinated or coerced by western intelligence. Where would that leave the people who scream about free speech and call for violent retribution?
I was imagining a similar scenario, Drowned Out. It's difficult to think that this could happen and I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but it is an interesting question to ponder.
Why is it difficult to think it could happen? There are many examples of similar scenarios that have been verified and admitted to by western powers...conspiracies? Yes. Theories? No.
No you're right, it's not difficult to think that it could happen, it's difficult and unsettling to think that maybe it did happen. Many theories surrounding conspiracies have been debunked... but of course, not all. That is unsettling.
Now, folks, here's something that I've been hesitant to mention but I'll throw it out there because I'm curious as to whether or not this makes sense:
Not too many years ago, many Americans were bashing the French because of France's opposition to the invasion of Iraq. We even went so far as to rename "French Fries"- "Freedom Fries". For some people here, everything French was evil.
So this afternoon, while I was rummaging around in a local thrift store, the Rush Limbaugh show was being aired on that stores radio (always nice to have some entertainment going while shopping). The commentators were practically falling all over themselves talking about how we really need to rally to support the French people in the wake of the Charlie Hebo shootings.
Now look, don't get me wrong. I'm NOT saying we should condone the shooting or that we should not have compassion for the French people. What I am questioning is why some segments of our population seem to be rather fickle when it comes to running the gamut from Franceophobia to Frenchophilia.
Is this a stretch?
It's all about politics and what stance serves the collective american agenda. When france balked at the US's request for help, all of a sudden france was public enemy #2. Now that the french have been attacked by public enemy #1, they are now public little brother #1.
Freedom fries indeed.
Well said, Paulonius.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The free speech fans of the left now find themselves being joined by the same conservatives who normally spend their time complaining about rap lyrics and Internet pornography but who suddenly find themselves to be free speech absolutists when the proponents of censorship are radical Muslims. Suddenly, the right not only will defend your right to offend others, but often argue it’s a moral duty.
Interesting!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I think this discussion is missing the point. And it's often due to the fact that many of you have your own ideologies guiding your beliefs -- beliefs you otherwise seem to want to argue are universal.
It's an image. A freakin cartoon. We should question, strongly Just as all the crap in the Bible. Stop coddling. We need to stop being polite. We need to stand up to these fables and Dogma. Make it harder for adults to spread they're fears to the young. Break the cycle.
And mutual respect between religions. Never. It's the non believers that have opportunity to actually make a difference.
It's not just an image. I know it must be hard for you to see, given how comfortably you're sitting thousands of miles away from where hundreds of thousands of Muslims are being slaughtered by Western (and Western-funded) bombs and bullets, but to many of these Muslims, the image merely reinforces the reality on the ground. I posted an article in this thread before but it's obvious from the discussion that no one has read it, so I'll post it again in the hopes that people here make an attempt to at least try and understand why this is about more than a simple cartoon: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291875937965762.html
I also find it incredibly convenient for you that it's not a mere fact that we have to defend "freedom of expression" (a cute idea that has never been applied equally) but that we have to defend these specific cartoons because it serves an ideological purpose for you as an anti-religion crusader. You WANT to spread discrimination. You are actively calling for insulting an already socially and economically disenfranchised group. This is akin to White America saying we have to publish racist cartoons of African Americans, or early 20th century Europe calling for anti-Semitic cartoons. If you can't connect these cartoons to the fact that Muslims are a target not only of Western governments living in the West, but also in Muslim-majority countries, then you are simply not understanding this issue from their perspective -- and if all you care about is your own perspective, then I'm afraid you've already determined that you are ready for more attacks, more death, and less understanding and respect. Which is a very convenient position to take when you're not the one facing any actual threat.
Fuck, that was a good post and I agree with most of it but, damn, that may have been the most indignantly arrogant post I have seen on these boards. The tone suggested you think you hold a monopoly on truth, although I am sure you don't actually feel that way.
"Fuck:Someone else on here also said that the reason they oppose Islam is because it (like Christianity and other religions, the poster alleges) takes the worldview that all nonbelievers are damned. I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. Your relationship to Christianity aside, Islam does not state this, and if you've done any real research -- hell, if you've just read the Quran, the one 600-page book which is the foundational text of the actual religion! -- you'd know this."
I present exhibits A and B to counter this falsehood you presented (knowingly IMO)
"...Enough is Hell for a burning fire. Those who reject Our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty. For Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise" (4:55-56)."
...Those who deny (their Lord), for them will be cut out a garment of Fire. Over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back, and (it will be said), "Taste the Penalty of Burning!" (22:19-22)."
Haha. I find it very interesting that you "are sure I don't actually feel that [I have a monopoly on truth" and yet you say my tone suggested as if I do. How else would you be so sure that I don't actually feel that way if not for the content on my post? It's probably because I'm so arrogant and stubborn when it comes to respecting each other, because that was the only point of my comment: I wasn't advocating that one side is better than another, I wasn't arguing that people's beliefs were wrong except when it came to thinking they were better than others. I don't think that's right, and I don't think it's arrogant of me to suggest that we all need to understand and respect each other.
Now, as for your actual point in your post, it's true that there is something I intended but left out:
I was responding to those who were implying that Muslims think they are better than non-Muslims in this world. The truth is, in Islam there is no way to know who will end up where in the afterlife. Furthermore, there are countless sayings of the Prophet about how a good person is determined by how good he is to others. These sayings don't say "a good person is determined by how much he believes in God" but are more about being ethical in this life. This was my point. There is also a saying attributed to the Prophet about a woman who worked as a prostitute and was at a well getting water for herself. Afterwards, she noticed a thirsty dog sitting in the sun and gave the dog some water as well. According to the story, God forgave her sins. This story did not mention that she was a Muslim, did not mention that she did anything other than take care of an animal once (not even a human).
The point of what I was saying was that a very obvious thing in Islam is that Muslims cannot judge whether another person is damned (either in this world or the hereafter) because that is left for God alone to determine. As humans, we can only judge a person's actions and not their intentions, which is a big (though certainly not the only deciding) factor.
This is the first point. The second point is to distinguish between what a "disbeliever" even is. In your translation of the Quranic verses, you didn't actually explain what word was used in Arabic. The word in Arabic for disbelieve is "kafaru", or where "kafir" comes from which many in the West incorrectly translate as infidel. This word is actually a lot more complex -- it is not merely one who disbelieves in Islam, but rather one who actively fights the religion and its adherents. Because in Islam, Muslims are not just taught to respect other peoples, but other peoples should respect Muslims as well. Kafir is a word that was used to call the Meccans at the time of Muhammad's preaching. They persecuted the Muslims, killed them, tortured them, etc., all because they were actively against the preaching of the religion for many different reasons (for instance, the movement preached social justice which threatened the wealth of many of the tribe's more powerful figures). In this case, they were called "kafirs" -- interestingly, the word "cover" in English comes from the Arabic word "kafir". This was because their hearts were covered by a veil which forced them not only to reject the message of Islam (which many in Medina -- the adopted home of Muhammad after he was forced into exile from Mecca -- did) but to actively persecute those who adhered to it.
As such, many of the verses in the Quran need to be contextualized. Muslim scholars for hundreds of years also talked about the hypothetical (though certainly very real) situation in which non-Muslims do not receive the pure message of Islam and thus reject it. Not because their hearts were necessarily closed to it, but also because the Islam they knew was not the real Islam -- it was distorted, or whatever else you wanna say. My point here is merely to say that this conversation is actually a lot more complex. It's not merely "Muslim good, non-Muslim bad" which unfortunately many Muslims themselves believe these days, due to a number of historical reasons as to why the conversation was degraded (largely due to colonialism and the installation of a certain number of Western-favored rulers, I might add).
How is it possible that the papers scream about the 12 death cartoonists, but don't pay much attention about the 50 violent attacks on Muslim citizens in France since the attack on Charlie Hebdo (even with grenade loungers)? Freedom of speech?
Why does it looks like the only response to violence seems to be more violence? Where does it end? What about some peaceful solutions, or did we get way past that form of solutions? I sure hope we're not!
Interesting to see that no one made a command on my post... I'll back it up with some articles:
By being so selective in our right of freedom of speech, we do what those terrorists wants us to do. we separate the Muslim population from other groups in society and blame the whole group for these attacks. While looking the other way, when they get violently attacked.
I think this way of dealing with the situation gives great opportunities for Muslim fundamentalism to grow rapidly! Because if you get blamed whatever you do, and don't get much attention when violated yourself, why not just actually, do the stuff they accuse you of for so many years? What difference does it make...?
Western societies have been measuring with two standards for far to long. Blaming and bullying Muslims for decades, everything that's going wrong is their fault. Wait a minute, didn't at laest the Euro's done this before, about a century ago? Look what kind of result we came out with....
But hey, let's get going with defending the freedom of expression and defending the "Free speech"... (of course only, as long as it has the same opinions as we do...)
Post edited by Aafke on
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
How is it possible that the papers scream about the 12 death cartoonists, but don't pay much attention about the 50 violent attacks on Muslim citizens in France since the attack on Charlie Hebdo (even with grenade loungers)? Freedom of speech?
Why does it looks like the only response to violence seems to be more violence? Where does it end? What about some peaceful solutions, or did we get way past that form of solutions? I sure hope we're not!
Interesting to see that no one made a command on my post... I'll back it up with some articles:
By being so selective in our right of freedom of speech, we do what those terrorists wants us to do. we separate the Muslim population from other groups in society and blame the whole group for these attacks. While looking the other way, when they get violently attacked.
I think this way of dealing with the situation gives great opportunities for Muslim fundamentalism to grow rapidly! Because if you get blamed whatever you do, and don't get much attention when violated yourself, why not just actually, do the stuff they accuse you of for so many years? What difference does it make...?
Western societies have been measuring with two standards for far to long. Blaming and bullying Muslims for decades, everything that's going wrong is their fault. Wait a minute, didn't at laest the Euro's done this before, about a century ago? Look what kind of result we came out with....
But hey, let's get going with defending the freedom of expression and defending the "Free speech"... (of course only, as long as it has the same opinions as we do...)
Agreed. I think everyone in this thread agrees with the principles regarding freedom of expression, but one thing that has not really been addressed in the discussion is its selective application and the fact that we all here do (I think at least) recognize that there are certain limits to what should be socially acceptable free expression. For instance, I think some here would probably have certain issues with nudists going shopping in public (particularly if these nudists aren't good looking models but rather 60-year old fat people). I'm sure some people are familiar that in France Muslim women aren't allowed to wear the veil that covers just their hair at schools. I'm sure that if some people here saw a man went to the "Paris unity I am Charlie" rally the other day holding a sign saying "I am Cherif Kouachi" (the name of one of the killers), they'd say it was in poor taste and if that man barely made it out alive they'd think in many ways it was justified how terribly many folks at that rally treated him (this did not happen btw, it's just a hypothetical).
Or take a look at this cartoon which satirizes Charlie Hebdo: http://arretsurinfo.ch/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Mrd.jpg
On the left is an actual cartoon Charlie Hebdo ran which makes fun of one of the worst massacres in Egyptian history, in which over 1000 protesters were murdered in the course of a few hours by the Egyptian military. It says sarcastically that the Quran was unable to stop the bullets. On the left is a fake cartoon made to satirize the Charlie Hebdo murders. If many protesters saw this, would they be defending this cartoon with such vigor the way they are defending free expression when it comes to Charlie Hebdo's cartoons? I highly doubt it -- and this is obviously because many of those on here when defending Charlie Hebdo cartoons make it very clear that it's because they actually support the content of these disgusting cartoons at the same time. But if it were about a subject that they found awful, such as making fun of the Holocaust, or something else considered faux pas in Western society, then I think there'd be more outrage -- the discussion would shift to "well theoretically you can post this under freedom of expression, but there are limits to this freedom -- it hurts communities, it led to the Holocaust, blah blah blah". But when it's a disenfranchised community living in your midst that you are not apart of, it's much easier to beat your chest and chant Freedom! while ignoring their concerns.
I disagree with the assertation that criticizing the cartoon is akin to blaming the rape victim for her clothes, as Bill Maher and some in this thread have suggested. I find that to be lazy. Openly and assertively trying to offend and piss off people for their beliefs isn't even in the same universe as wanting to wear a short skirt when going out to a club. Come on.
These are extremists, not true muslims. Just like the westboro baptist church are extremists, not your average christian.
I disagree with the assertation that criticizing the cartoon is akin to blaming the rape victim for her clothes, as Bill Maher and some in this thread have suggested. I find that to be lazy. Openly and assertively trying to offend and piss off people for their beliefs isn't even in the same universe as wanting to wear a short skirt when going out to a club. Come on.
These are extremists, not true muslims. Just like the westboro baptist church are extremists, not your average christian.
Come on is right, you keep trying to compare this attack with school yard bullying. Not even close to the same thing, we are all adults.....why can't we start acting like adults. Kids get offended by stupid shit, adults don't.
Sure, journalism can be challenging and uncomfortable without being outright offensive...but who decides what is offensive? And to who? If something is offensive to some, should it not be shown at all? Never going to please everyone, particularly in today's world. I think a magazine that pushes the envelope should be allowed to, and those that choose not to read it should ignore it.
*insert thumbs-up dude*
welp, if the reprinting of the dutch cartoon was offensive enough to get someone to firebomb the CH offices in 2011, I would personally think I wouldn't keep poking that particular bear.
From my seat, if they continue to poke at this, then next time(there will be a next time) I will have zero empathy or sympathy.
Mickeyrat, yours is one of the voices I most respect on this board. I always appreciate your takes and insight, even when we disagree. Especially when we disagree. For that reason I'm troubled by the quote above. It reads like you are absolutely blaming the victim for what happened in Paris. Other posters have claimed in this thread that no one here is doing that, yet this quote seems to be proof positive that some are. "Poking the bear" is the reason why these attacks happened? If they continue to poke the bear, and another group of artists are slaughtered, you will have no empathy or sympathy?
Am I misreading what you have intended here?
as I said, after being firebombed in 2011, they apparently didnt get the message that some were willing to kill over it. instead of taking that into consideration they kept up. Now with 12 dead , its somehow become about freedom of speech. I empathize with the families of those killed.I would do so for the families of those killed in the future. But freedom of speech not only comes with responsibilities it comes with accountability. MY preference would be that no one buys this magazine. Others will seek blood. Blood is the price they will pay for conitnuing. They have been spoiling for a fight and now they have gotten it. I fail to se how no matter what happens I should see soemone ppicking a fight as a victim when they get their ass handed to them.
What I reference is this specific magazine. Not some other group of writers/cartoonists.
Finally I want to say I appreciate your kind words about me.
Thank you for taking the time to respond and clairfy. I think I hear what you are saying.
While I agree that responsibility in speech is important, I don't think the price for irresponsible speech should ever be blood. In that sense this is about freedom of speech. I don't think that because these thugs have firebombed offices and murdered artists, that we should allow them to dictate that is what happens to you if you write/say/draw/print/think something that they don't like. Once we do, we are in essence saying "Well, you shouldn't have drawn that. You know what happens to you now." That is blaming the victim, in my opinion. These murderers shouldn't be given that kind of power, and it feels like as the discussion goes on that is what is happening.
I have no interest in buying Charlie Hebdo, but I am glad others are. I hope it survives this crisis even though it is not something that appeals to me. There is and should be room for it in this world.
Standing up to the bully in the school yard and punching him in the face is a heroic act, one that should be applauded. By pretending that the artists at Charlie Hebdo were bullies, and that the murderers who stormed their office were standing up to them, you are painting the killers in a heroic light. I could not possibly disagree more with this school of thought.
Thank you for taking the time to respond and clairfy. I think I hear what you are saying.
While I agree that responsibility in speech is important, I don't think the price for irresponsible speech should ever be blood. In that sense this is about freedom of speech. I don't think that because these thugs have firebombed offices and murdered artists, that we should allow them to dictate that is what happens to you if you write/say/draw/print/think something that they don't like. Once we do, we are in essence saying "Well, you shouldn't have drawn that. You know what happens to you now." That is blaming the victim, in my opinion. These murderers shouldn't be given that kind of power, and it feels like as the discussion goes on that is what is happening.
I have no interest in buying Charlie Hebdo, but I am glad others are. I hope it survives this crisis even though it is not something that appeals to me. There is and should be room for it in this world.
Better said than I could.
For whatever it's worth, I think you - and mickey - are a class act.
Jimmy, I agree blood shouldnt. But lets deal in the reality of what we are seeing. Given the recent evidence wouldn't it be prudent to hammer harder but on a different tack? Malign those who would do such a thing not a revered figure to 1.6 billion people.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And Muslims are also being killed in retaliation for the Hebo killings and goes round and round it goes, violence begets violence and the bodies counts will continue to pile up as religious fanatics go crazy and nationalist zealots go mad and free speech is abused and overreaction to that abuse gets out of hand and round and round it goes as violence begets violence and the body counts pile up and round and round... infuckinsanity rules.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Mickey, I agree that may be more prudent but I also respect the refusal to back down. The true bullies are the ones with guns, not the ones with pens and pencils.
Brian, you are absolutely right. An ugly and infuckingsane cycle with no end in sight.
Don't click on the link if you don't care to see awful things (including a woman stoned).
The 'bullies' don't just target cartoonists in the interest of their religion.
Exactly what is the ultimate goal of the extremists? And is there a large pool of extremists that these forces draw from to pursue this goal, or do they recruit extremists from the moderate faction? In other words, is this spike in radical behavior the start of a new way of life that has the chance to even intensify, or a blemish soon to be a topic of historical study?
What would it take for peace? Given such intolerance, is peace even a remote possibility?
Don't click on the link if you don't care to see awful things (including a woman stoned).
The 'bullies' don't just target cartoonists in the interest of their religion.
Exactly what is the ultimate goal of the extremists? And is there a large pool of extremists that these forces draw from to pursue this goal, or do they recruit extremists from the moderate faction? In other words, is this spike in radical behavior the start of a new way of life that has the chance to even intensify, or a blemish soon to be a topic of historical study?
Good questions, Thirty Bills, and I would add to them: What roll does the media play in both our perceptions and in spreading or dissipating this seeming rise in extremism?
I sometimes wonder if media exposure (world-wide) does more to fuel that behavior than it does to decrease it. Maybe my pessimism is a a reflection of looking at those images in the link.
What would it take for peace? Given such intolerance, is peace even a remote possibility?
I've often stated in these forums my belief and hope for peace (and have been harshly criticized for doing so). I still champion the idea of peace but when I read the news lately and look at the photographs in that link I feel that hope fade to a very, very dim little spark. When I think that way, I feel pathetic.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I just can't click on the link, Thirty - but the description...my god.
Speaking out loud here, but my thought on peace, at the moment, is this.
I think many, most of us around the world are decent overall. Compassionate, humane, whole-hearted. Try to make a difference in sometimes huge but usually small ways. Still valuable, to me.
Then there are the fucked up factions who have the means to have their voice reverbrated in much larger ways - more violent, more people murdered or affected, more nonsensical loss.
I just can't click on the link, Thirty - but the description...my god.
Speaking out loud here, but my thought on peace, at the moment, is this.
I think many, most of us around the world are decent overall. Compassionate, humane, whole-hearted. Try to make a difference in sometimes huge but usually small ways. Still valuable, to me.
Then there are the fucked up factions who have the means to have their voice reverbrated in much larger ways - more violent, more people murdered or affected, more nonsensical loss.
And for what?
I'm going to let that (highlighted) thought sink into my brain today, Hedo. Nice!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Don't click on the link if you don't care to see awful things (including a woman stoned).
The 'bullies' don't just target cartoonists in the interest of their religion.
Exactly what is the ultimate goal of the extremists? And is there a large pool of extremists that these forces draw from to pursue this goal, or do they recruit extremists from the moderate faction? In other words, is this spike in radical behavior the start of a new way of life that has the chance to even intensify, or a blemish soon to be a topic of historical study?
Good questions, Thirty Bills, and I would add to them: What roll does the media play in both our perceptions and in spreading or dissipating this seeming rise in extremism?
I sometimes wonder if media exposure (world-wide) does more to fuel that behavior than it does to decrease it. Maybe my pessimism is a a reflection of looking at those images in the link.
What would it take for peace? Given such intolerance, is peace even a remote possibility?
I've often stated in these forums my belief and hope for peace (and have been harshly criticized for doing so). I still champion the idea of peace but when I read the news lately and look at the photographs in that link I feel that hope fade to a very, very dim little spark. When I think that way, I feel pathetic.
Brian you talk about the effect of media exposure and its impact on fueling the fire.Just today I was watching an interesting story on CNN(Farkeed Zakaria) discussing the past of one of the Paris shooters.His "extremist" views were brought on by watching news of American bombings in Iraq.So clearly it does have some impact in creating images that help form these vengeance filled actions.The story then took an interesting angle.They studied the Rise and fall of the recruitment of Islamic terrorists,in predominant Muslim countries since 1980.Contrasting Western Actions in these areas and its direct impact on the recruitment of groups like AQ,IS,Etc
What they found does not mesh with what some on this site like to reference as the root cause of all this extremist terrorist activity and that's the USA/West involvement in those regions.Yes,It did have a direct result in quite a few of these countries and conflicts but in some of the biggest surges in recruitment documented it was the US lack of involvement that caused the increase.Bosnia was a great example.A huge surge in was noted when we didn't hang around.Other regions also noticed the same thing.So it would seem we are blamed for too much involvement and also blamed for not enough.
And Jimmy I'm with your thought process here.Although speech may be tasteless and offensive,you can't pick and choose what is offensive and to who.So those freedoms of expression,thought and speech must never be bottled up at the risk of offending someone at some time.
The threat of Death and violence should never halt these freedoms regardless of the content.There is NEVER a reason words should justify death.
I just can't click on the link, Thirty - but the description...my god.
Speaking out loud here, but my thought on peace, at the moment, is this.
I think many, most of us around the world are decent overall. Compassionate, humane, whole-hearted. Try to make a difference in sometimes huge but usually small ways. Still valuable, to me.
Then there are the fucked up factions who have the means to have their voice reverbrated in much larger ways - more violent, more people murdered or affected, more nonsensical loss.
And for what?
I'm going to let that (highlighted) thought sink into my brain today, Hedo. Nice!
By doing that you made Hedos point,as she has now in a small way made a difference in someone's thinking.
And Jimmy I'm with your thought process here.Although speech may be tasteless and offensive,you can't pick and choose what is offensive and to who.So those freedoms of expression,thought and speech must never be bottled up at the risk of offending someone at some time.
The threat of Death and violence should never halt these freedoms regardless of the content.There is NEVER a reason words should justify death.
At the risk of starting a circular argument (why did that even enter my mind to type that first?) I agree about words not justifying death but on the other hand RR, what if from now on everyday I call you a dick publicly on this forum? I don't even know you but it should be in my right mind to not do this to you. Because I can though, I will. (not really, just making a point)
Don't click on the link if you don't care to see awful things (including a woman stoned).
The 'bullies' don't just target cartoonists in the interest of their religion.
Exactly what is the ultimate goal of the extremists? And is there a large pool of extremists that these forces draw from to pursue this goal, or do they recruit extremists from the moderate faction? In other words, is this spike in radical behavior the start of a new way of life that has the chance to even intensify, or a blemish soon to be a topic of historical study?
Good questions, Thirty Bills, and I would add to them: What roll does the media play in both our perceptions and in spreading or dissipating this seeming rise in extremism?
I sometimes wonder if media exposure (world-wide) does more to fuel that behavior than it does to decrease it. Maybe my pessimism is a a reflection of looking at those images in the link.
What would it take for peace? Given such intolerance, is peace even a remote possibility?
I've often stated in these forums my belief and hope for peace (and have been harshly criticized for doing so). I still champion the idea of peace but when I read the news lately and look at the photographs in that link I feel that hope fade to a very, very dim little spark. When I think that way, I feel pathetic.
Brian you talk about the effect of media exposure and its impact on fueling the fire.Just today I was watching an interesting story on CNN(Farkeed Zakaria) discussing the past of one of the Paris shooters.His "extremist" views were brought on by watching news of American bombings in Iraq.So clearly it does have some impact in creating images that help form these vengeance filled actions.The story then took an interesting angle.They studied the Rise and fall of the recruitment of Islamic terrorists,in predominant Muslim countries since 1980.Contrasting Western Actions in these areas and its direct impact on the recruitment of groups like AQ,IS,Etc
What they found does not mesh with what some on this site like to reference as the root cause of all this extremist terrorist activity and that's the USA/West involvement in those regions.Yes,It did have a direct result in quite a few of these countries and conflicts but in some of the biggest surges in recruitment documented it was the US lack of involvement that caused the increase.Bosnia was a great example.A huge surge in was noted when we didn't hang around.Other regions also noticed the same thing.So it would seem we are blamed for too much involvement and also blamed for not enough.
I think it depends all on the angle the journalist has on this issue. I believe that no one has a neutral point of view about this issue, So there will be no neutral journalism about it. Every angle has it's own courses of information, and background coverage. But because there is no objective journalism, all forms of journalism in one way or the other, is a kind of propaganda for a particular world view.
So yes, Journalism is fuel on the fire...
Post edited by Aafke on
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Comments
What I reference is this specific magazine. Not some other group of writers/cartoonists.
Finally I want to say I appreciate your kind words about me.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
content. all about the content. these guys have no shame. Claiming the kidnapped Nigerian girls are welfare queens? What idea is that advancing? I would surely like to know.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
what we ARE seeing is several Euro countries all the sudden spoiling plots.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It's all about politics and what stance serves the collective american agenda. When france balked at the US's request for help, all of a sudden france was public enemy #2. Now that the french have been attacked by public enemy #1, they are now public little brother #1.
Freedom fries indeed.
www.headstonesband.com
Well said, Paulonius.
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/16/5_times_the_right_out_over_blasphemous_depictions_of_christianity_partner/
From that link:
The free speech fans of the left now find themselves being joined by the same conservatives who normally spend their time complaining about rap lyrics and Internet pornography but who suddenly find themselves to be free speech absolutists when the proponents of censorship are radical Muslims. Suddenly, the right not only will defend your right to offend others, but often argue it’s a moral duty.
Interesting!
It's not just an image. I know it must be hard for you to see, given how comfortably you're sitting thousands of miles away from where hundreds of thousands of Muslims are being slaughtered by Western (and Western-funded) bombs and bullets, but to many of these Muslims, the image merely reinforces the reality on the ground. I posted an article in this thread before but it's obvious from the discussion that no one has read it, so I'll post it again in the hopes that people here make an attempt to at least try and understand why this is about more than a simple cartoon: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291875937965762.html
I also find it incredibly convenient for you that it's not a mere fact that we have to defend "freedom of expression" (a cute idea that has never been applied equally) but that we have to defend these specific cartoons because it serves an ideological purpose for you as an anti-religion crusader. You WANT to spread discrimination. You are actively calling for insulting an already socially and economically disenfranchised group. This is akin to White America saying we have to publish racist cartoons of African Americans, or early 20th century Europe calling for anti-Semitic cartoons. If you can't connect these cartoons to the fact that Muslims are a target not only of Western governments living in the West, but also in Muslim-majority countries, then you are simply not understanding this issue from their perspective -- and if all you care about is your own perspective, then I'm afraid you've already determined that you are ready for more attacks, more death, and less understanding and respect. Which is a very convenient position to take when you're not the one facing any actual threat.
More articles I recommend to understand why this is not just about free speech and why this is not just about a cartoon:
- Charlie Hebdo and the hypocrisy of pencils: http://redflag.org.au/node/4373
- Unmournable Bodies: http://newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/unmournable-bodies
- Moral Clarity: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/01/09/adam-shatz/moral-clarity/
- Glenn Greenwald on the Sham of the West's Free Speech Celebration: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/
Haha. I find it very interesting that you "are sure I don't actually feel that [I have a monopoly on truth" and yet you say my tone suggested as if I do. How else would you be so sure that I don't actually feel that way if not for the content on my post? It's probably because I'm so arrogant and stubborn when it comes to respecting each other, because that was the only point of my comment: I wasn't advocating that one side is better than another, I wasn't arguing that people's beliefs were wrong except when it came to thinking they were better than others. I don't think that's right, and I don't think it's arrogant of me to suggest that we all need to understand and respect each other.
Now, as for your actual point in your post, it's true that there is something I intended but left out:
I was responding to those who were implying that Muslims think they are better than non-Muslims in this world. The truth is, in Islam there is no way to know who will end up where in the afterlife. Furthermore, there are countless sayings of the Prophet about how a good person is determined by how good he is to others. These sayings don't say "a good person is determined by how much he believes in God" but are more about being ethical in this life. This was my point. There is also a saying attributed to the Prophet about a woman who worked as a prostitute and was at a well getting water for herself. Afterwards, she noticed a thirsty dog sitting in the sun and gave the dog some water as well. According to the story, God forgave her sins. This story did not mention that she was a Muslim, did not mention that she did anything other than take care of an animal once (not even a human).
The point of what I was saying was that a very obvious thing in Islam is that Muslims cannot judge whether another person is damned (either in this world or the hereafter) because that is left for God alone to determine. As humans, we can only judge a person's actions and not their intentions, which is a big (though certainly not the only deciding) factor.
This is the first point. The second point is to distinguish between what a "disbeliever" even is. In your translation of the Quranic verses, you didn't actually explain what word was used in Arabic. The word in Arabic for disbelieve is "kafaru", or where "kafir" comes from which many in the West incorrectly translate as infidel. This word is actually a lot more complex -- it is not merely one who disbelieves in Islam, but rather one who actively fights the religion and its adherents. Because in Islam, Muslims are not just taught to respect other peoples, but other peoples should respect Muslims as well. Kafir is a word that was used to call the Meccans at the time of Muhammad's preaching. They persecuted the Muslims, killed them, tortured them, etc., all because they were actively against the preaching of the religion for many different reasons (for instance, the movement preached social justice which threatened the wealth of many of the tribe's more powerful figures). In this case, they were called "kafirs" -- interestingly, the word "cover" in English comes from the Arabic word "kafir". This was because their hearts were covered by a veil which forced them not only to reject the message of Islam (which many in Medina -- the adopted home of Muhammad after he was forced into exile from Mecca -- did) but to actively persecute those who adhered to it.
As such, many of the verses in the Quran need to be contextualized. Muslim scholars for hundreds of years also talked about the hypothetical (though certainly very real) situation in which non-Muslims do not receive the pure message of Islam and thus reject it. Not because their hearts were necessarily closed to it, but also because the Islam they knew was not the real Islam -- it was distorted, or whatever else you wanna say. My point here is merely to say that this conversation is actually a lot more complex. It's not merely "Muslim good, non-Muslim bad" which unfortunately many Muslims themselves believe these days, due to a number of historical reasons as to why the conversation was degraded (largely due to colonialism and the installation of a certain number of Western-favored rulers, I might add).
Interesting to see that no one made a command on my post... I'll back it up with some articles:
rt.com/news/221995-france-anti-muslim-incidents/
anonhq.com/anti-muslim-attacks-charlie-hebdo-massacre/
By being so selective in our right of freedom of speech, we do what those terrorists wants us to do. we separate the Muslim population from other groups in society and blame the whole group for these attacks. While looking the other way, when they get violently attacked.
I think this way of dealing with the situation gives great opportunities for Muslim fundamentalism to grow rapidly! Because if you get blamed whatever you do, and don't get much attention when violated yourself, why not just actually, do the stuff they accuse you of for so many years? What difference does it make...?
Western societies have been measuring with two standards for far to long. Blaming and bullying Muslims for decades, everything that's going wrong is their fault. Wait a minute, didn't at laest the Euro's done this before, about a century ago? Look what kind of result we came out with....
But hey, let's get going with defending the freedom of expression and defending the "Free speech"... (of course only, as long as it has the same opinions as we do...)
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Agreed. I think everyone in this thread agrees with the principles regarding freedom of expression, but one thing that has not really been addressed in the discussion is its selective application and the fact that we all here do (I think at least) recognize that there are certain limits to what should be socially acceptable free expression. For instance, I think some here would probably have certain issues with nudists going shopping in public (particularly if these nudists aren't good looking models but rather 60-year old fat people). I'm sure some people are familiar that in France Muslim women aren't allowed to wear the veil that covers just their hair at schools. I'm sure that if some people here saw a man went to the "Paris unity I am Charlie" rally the other day holding a sign saying "I am Cherif Kouachi" (the name of one of the killers), they'd say it was in poor taste and if that man barely made it out alive they'd think in many ways it was justified how terribly many folks at that rally treated him (this did not happen btw, it's just a hypothetical).
Or take a look at this cartoon which satirizes Charlie Hebdo: http://arretsurinfo.ch/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Mrd.jpg
On the left is an actual cartoon Charlie Hebdo ran which makes fun of one of the worst massacres in Egyptian history, in which over 1000 protesters were murdered in the course of a few hours by the Egyptian military. It says sarcastically that the Quran was unable to stop the bullets. On the left is a fake cartoon made to satirize the Charlie Hebdo murders. If many protesters saw this, would they be defending this cartoon with such vigor the way they are defending free expression when it comes to Charlie Hebdo's cartoons? I highly doubt it -- and this is obviously because many of those on here when defending Charlie Hebdo cartoons make it very clear that it's because they actually support the content of these disgusting cartoons at the same time. But if it were about a subject that they found awful, such as making fun of the Holocaust, or something else considered faux pas in Western society, then I think there'd be more outrage -- the discussion would shift to "well theoretically you can post this under freedom of expression, but there are limits to this freedom -- it hurts communities, it led to the Holocaust, blah blah blah". But when it's a disenfranchised community living in your midst that you are not apart of, it's much easier to beat your chest and chant Freedom! while ignoring their concerns.
These are extremists, not true muslims. Just like the westboro baptist church are extremists, not your average christian.
www.headstonesband.com
Come on is right, you keep trying to compare this attack with school yard bullying. Not even close to the same thing, we are all adults.....why can't we start acting like adults. Kids get offended by stupid shit, adults don't.
Thank you for taking the time to respond and clairfy. I think I hear what you are saying.
While I agree that responsibility in speech is important, I don't think the price for irresponsible speech should ever be blood. In that sense this is about freedom of speech. I don't think that because these thugs have firebombed offices and murdered artists, that we should allow them to dictate that is what happens to you if you write/say/draw/print/think something that they don't like. Once we do, we are in essence saying "Well, you shouldn't have drawn that. You know what happens to you now." That is blaming the victim, in my opinion. These murderers shouldn't be given that kind of power, and it feels like as the discussion goes on that is what is happening.
I have no interest in buying Charlie Hebdo, but I am glad others are. I hope it survives this crisis even though it is not something that appeals to me. There is and should be room for it in this world.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Standing up to the bully in the school yard and punching him in the face is a heroic act, one that should be applauded. By pretending that the artists at Charlie Hebdo were bullies, and that the murderers who stormed their office were standing up to them, you are painting the killers in a heroic light. I could not possibly disagree more with this school of thought.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
For whatever it's worth, I think you - and mickey - are a class act.
Thanks to you both.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/17/violent-protests-reportedly-kill-10-in-niger-as-charlie-hebdo-cartoon-riles-muslin-world/
And Muslims are also being killed in retaliation for the Hebo killings and goes round and round it goes, violence begets violence and the bodies counts will continue to pile up as religious fanatics go crazy and nationalist zealots go mad and free speech is abused and overreaction to that abuse gets out of hand and round and round it goes as violence begets violence and the body counts pile up and round and round... infuckinsanity rules.
Brian, you are absolutely right. An ugly and infuckingsane cycle with no end in sight.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Islamic state militants throwing gays from the top of a building as large crowds gather to watch the 'application of the law': https://news.vice.com/article/gruesome-photos-allegedly-show-islamic-state-throwing-gay-men-off-a-tall-building
Don't click on the link if you don't care to see awful things (including a woman stoned).
The 'bullies' don't just target cartoonists in the interest of their religion.
Exactly what is the ultimate goal of the extremists? And is there a large pool of extremists that these forces draw from to pursue this goal, or do they recruit extremists from the moderate faction? In other words, is this spike in radical behavior the start of a new way of life that has the chance to even intensify, or a blemish soon to be a topic of historical study?
What would it take for peace? Given such intolerance, is peace even a remote possibility?
Good questions, Thirty Bills, and I would add to them: What roll does the media play in both our perceptions and in spreading or dissipating this seeming rise in extremism?
I sometimes wonder if media exposure (world-wide) does more to fuel that behavior than it does to decrease it. Maybe my pessimism is a a reflection of looking at those images in the link.
I've often stated in these forums my belief and hope for peace (and have been harshly criticized for doing so). I still champion the idea of peace but when I read the news lately and look at the photographs in that link I feel that hope fade to a very, very dim little spark. When I think that way, I feel pathetic.
Speaking out loud here, but my thought on peace, at the moment, is this.
I think many, most of us around the world are decent overall. Compassionate, humane, whole-hearted. Try to make a difference in sometimes huge but usually small ways. Still valuable, to me.
Then there are the fucked up factions who have the means to have their voice reverbrated in much larger ways - more violent, more people murdered or affected, more nonsensical loss.
And for what?
I'm going to let that (highlighted) thought sink into my brain today, Hedo. Nice!
What they found does not mesh with what some on this site like to reference as the root cause of all this extremist terrorist activity and that's the USA/West involvement in those regions.Yes,It did have a direct result in quite a few of these countries and conflicts but in some of the biggest surges in recruitment documented it was the US lack of involvement that caused the increase.Bosnia was a great example.A huge surge in was noted when we didn't hang around.Other regions also noticed the same thing.So it would seem we are blamed for too much involvement and also blamed for not enough.
The threat of Death and violence should never halt these freedoms regardless of the content.There is NEVER a reason words should justify death.
By doing that you made Hedos point,as she has now in a small way made a difference in someone's thinking.
At the risk of starting a circular argument (why did that even enter my mind to type that first?) I agree about words not justifying death but on the other hand RR, what if from now on everyday I call you a dick publicly on this forum? I don't even know you but it should be in my right mind to not do this to you. Because I can though, I will. (not really, just making a point)
I think it depends all on the angle the journalist has on this issue. I believe that no one has a neutral point of view about this issue, So there will be no neutral journalism about it. Every angle has it's own courses of information, and background coverage. But because there is no objective journalism, all forms of journalism in one way or the other, is a kind of propaganda for a particular world view.
So yes, Journalism is fuel on the fire...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee