Charlie Hebdo attack

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7508
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zamfir » Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:13 pm UTC

http://m.france24.com/en/20150107-charlie-hebdo-satirical-weekly-islamists-prophet-cartoons-deadly-attack/

Armed men, presumably muslim extremists, have killed at least 12 people at the premises of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6544
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:42 pm UTC

Its an awful price to pay for free speech. I know I'm a proponent of free speech, but a mass shooting is not what I predicted. I was expecting an angry protest or death threats.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Cradarc » Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:02 pm UTC

Any needless loss of lives is always tragic. It's interesting how we feel more sympathy for the few that are gunned down instead of the millions that die from poverty, disease, etc. Perhaps we are shocked by people who are willing to do it in a graphic and personal manner. Or perhaps we are just shocked that such violence can occur in our bubble of "civilized" society.

I wonder if the terrorists (presumably they are still alive) feel a drop of empathy for the people they killed. Are they psychopathic or just horribly misguided? Do they truly feel what they did was just or were they acting on rage?
I wonder if the survivors at Charlie Hebdo feel bad about publishing the contentious article. Do they still feel it was worth it? Compromising free speech can be a slippery slope, but in this case would that have been the more prudent choice?

Events like this always makes me philosophical about humanity. Yet in less than 48 hours it will be far from my mind as I continue about my daily routines. Such is life.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:06 pm UTC

France does have a historically large Muslim population. They are also unusually suppressive of Religion and religious symbols. That said, there is no way that the magazine deserves this attack. But I have a feeling (as an outsider looking in) that the religious feel somewhat oppressed in the country which makes them more likely to lash out.

I've never been to France though. Its an opinion I've gained from only reading various news articles. In any case, the extremist terrorists are clearly in the wrong, but I can't help but wonder that at its core, France might be having a secular vs religious war between its citizens.

Such a hateful action will only make France's citizens more distrustful of religion in general, which will lead to more oppression of Religious symbols. I'm foreseeing an unfortunate death-spiral.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7508
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zamfir » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:18 pm UTC

To be blunt: I don't think you should make such sweeping statements, especially from the outside. 'France's citizens' are not a hive mind with unified ideas on religion. 'The religious' are not behind these attacks, they are not a hive mind either. Nor are Muslims. And the dead people did not deserve this, full stop. No buts.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:22 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:It's interesting how we feel more sympathy for the few that are gunned down instead of the millions that die from poverty, disease, etc.

I imagine you are speaking generally about humans today, but I just wanted to state that individuals and eventually society does not have to feel more sympathy for the few over the millions. People are capable of being better than that, you can choose to learn about and be rational about the difference of reality between a few and millions and have more sympathy for the greater harm caused. The harm caused here is not limited to those killed or wounded, although they certainly deserve more than our sympathy, they deserve our support in protecting and fighting for the removal of absurd ideals.

I wonder if the terrorists (presumably they are still alive) feel a drop of empathy for the people they killed. Are they psychopathic or just horribly misguided? Do they truly feel what they did was just or were they acting on rage?

Please learn what words like psychopath mean before brazenly throwing outdated diagnosis around, the world is much more complex than being a psychopath or being misguided. Using such terms diminishes the reality of the problem and thus makes it hard to discuss it rationally and then of course find a good course of action to move forward.

---------------------------
KnightExemplar wrote:France does have a historically large Muslim population. They are also unusually suppressive of Religion and religious symbols. That said, there is no way that the magazine deserves this attack. But I have a feeling (as an outsider looking in) that the religious feel somewhat oppressed in the country which makes them more likely to lash out.

Do you really feel ideas and thinking that lead to behavior such as this should not be oppressed?

Edit: Oppressed isn't the right word. Shunned, looked down upon, valued less, educated to be shown a better way is more appropriate.
Last edited by Zcorp on Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:48 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:22 pm UTC

And the dead people did not deserve this, full stop. No buts.


I'll agree to this.

I do realize that as an outsider, I'll be making sweeping generalizations that are probably wrong. So its probably best if I just stayed quiet on my opinion of things.

'The religious' are not behind these attacks, they are not a hive mind either. Nor are Muslims.


I seem to have worded my statement poorly earlier. I did not mean it in this way. Point taken... that wasn't what I was trying to say though.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby kingofdreams » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:25 pm UTC

Violence against satirists is surely self-defeating, all this has done is exacerbated islamophobia and spawned a whole bunch of other licentious 'blasphemy'

this defense of the prophet smacks of a thin veneer of hypocrisy plastered over the same sort of psychopathy that prompts the deranged to shoot up movie-theaters
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:29 pm UTC

kingofdreams wrote:this defense of the prophet smacks of a thin veneer of hypocrisy plastered over the same sort of psychopathy that prompts the deranged to shoot up movie-theaters

Assuming you are talking about James Eagan Holmes, I'll say again, the world is more complex than psychopath or not. And if you want to try and solve problems like these, you owe it to society to learn what that means and what drove his and their behavior instead of mindlessly labeling them a psychopath. You can be better than that.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:50 pm UTC

The problem is that while most Muslims are not and do not wish to be represented by the Qutbis, the Qutbis wish and claim to represent all Muslims.

Fuck the Qutbis.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:54 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:France does have a historically large Muslim population. They are also unusually suppressive of Religion and religious symbols. That said, there is no way that the magazine deserves this attack. But I have a feeling (as an outsider looking in) that the religious feel somewhat oppressed in the country which makes them more likely to lash out.

Do you really feel ideas and thinking that lead to behavior such as this should not be oppressed?

Edit: Oppressed isn't the right word. Shunned, looked down upon, valued less, educated to be shown a better way is more appropriate.


Erm... no. Because looking down upon groups of people with strong cultural identities is just about the dumbest thing you can do. The minute you start "educating the lesser folk", you've begun to turn into a bigot.

Oppressing identity politics only leads to war. The equivalent would be an anti-Black crackdown due to the Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos murders in late December. Sure, Ismaaiyl Brinsley was a black guy, but his actions don't represent African Americans in general. Similarly, the attackers of Charlie Hebdo do not represent Islam in general.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby kingofdreams » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:11 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:
kingofdreams wrote:this defense of the prophet smacks of a thin veneer of hypocrisy plastered over the same sort of psychopathy that prompts the deranged to shoot up movie-theaters

Assuming you are talking about James Eagan Holmes, I'll say again, the world is more complex than psychopath or not. And if you want to try and solve problems like these, you owe it to society to learn what that means and what drove his and their behavior instead of mindlessly labeling them a psychopath. You can be better than that.


I'm not pretending the murder happens in a vacuum. The point remains 12 were killed ostensibly for a cause that said murderers are undermining. I'm all for reconciling both sides of the divide, but the actors in this instance don't represent either side of secular / islamic conflict. These 3 are unwell. Labeling them such isn't a refuge its a statement that these acts aren't tolerable.
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:18 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Zcorp wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:France does have a historically large Muslim population. They are also unusually suppressive of Religion and religious symbols. That said, there is no way that the magazine deserves this attack. But I have a feeling (as an outsider looking in) that the religious feel somewhat oppressed in the country which makes them more likely to lash out.

Do you really feel ideas and thinking that lead to behavior such as this should not be oppressed?

Edit: Oppressed isn't the right word. Shunned, looked down upon, valued less, educated to be shown a better way is more appropriate.


Erm... no. Because looking down upon groups of people with strong cultural identities is just about the dumbest thing you can do. The minute you start "educating the lesser folk", you've begun to turn into a bigot.

Oppressing identity politics only leads to war. The equivalent would be an anti-Black crackdown due to the Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos murders in late December. Sure, Ismaaiyl Brinsley was a black guy, but his actions don't represent African Americans in general. Similarly, the attackers here do not represent Islam in general.

No one said they represent Islam in general, including me, so stop with that. In fact Zamfir did a great job of pointing that out for anyone who might of been confused by your post, so why bring it up again?

I'm not going to rehash the discussion on tolerance of intolerance here, there are a few other places that discussion has already happened. Suffice to say that if you believe the removal of ideology that harms society to be 'about the dumbest thing you can do' you don't want to live in the world I want to live in. I'm not really sure what world you want to live in but seemingly it is one that values cultures that self-identify - lets just take the most recent significant examples in the States - in bigotry sexual orientation or gender identity and creationism. I don't even need to take your statement to the obvious conclusions end thoughtless genocidal or slaving cultures to show how flawed it is. There are ideas that we should look down on, does that make a bigot? Toward ideas or cultures that influence people to respond to satire with murder, I most certainly am, and I find it sad that you aren't.

---------------------
kingofdreams wrote:
Zcorp wrote:
kingofdreams wrote:this defense of the prophet smacks of a thin veneer of hypocrisy plastered over the same sort of psychopathy that prompts the deranged to shoot up movie-theaters

Assuming you are talking about James Eagan Holmes, I'll say again, the world is more complex than psychopath or not. And if you want to try and solve problems like these, you owe it to society to learn what that means and what drove his and their behavior instead of mindlessly labeling them a psychopath. You can be better than that.


I'm not pretending the murder happens in a vacuum. The point remains 12 were killed ostensibly for a cause that said murderers are undermining. I'm all for reconciling both sides of the divide, but the actors in this instance don't represent either side of secular / islamic conflict. These 3 are unwell. Labeling them such isn't a refuge its a statement that these acts aren't tolerable.

Who said anything about you pretending murder happens in vacuum? Why is it so hard to read what people actually right?

You stated, didn't pretend, that you believe these people to be psychopaths. I then stated you don't know what that word means and when you diminish this event to the 'work of a psychopath' you diminish the problems relating to this event, diminish what the victims stood for and why the got murder for it. There is no indication at all this is the work of a psychopath, so please don't say it is, the world is more complex than psychopath or not and more complex than secular / islamic conflict (which again no one has said at all). The victims deserve more respect than you are giving when you diminish this even to either of those things.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:28 pm UTC

kingofdreams wrote:I'm not pretending the murder happens in a vacuum. The point remains 12 were killed ostensibly for a cause that said murderers are undermining. I'm all for reconciling both sides of the divide, but the actors in this instance don't represent either side of secular / islamic conflict. These 3 are unwell. Labeling them such isn't a refuge its a statement that these acts aren't tolerable.


If their cause is "scare people away from criticizing Islam", no, they are not undermining their cause. Quite the opposite in fact. Remember how South Park had an episode with Mohammed in it and no one cared, but then a Danish newspaper published some cartoons, the Islamic world rioted and 140 people were killed, and suddenly South Park couldn't show Mohammed in it anymore?

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby kingofdreams » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:28 pm UTC

quite frankly I didn't notice your earlier issue with the use of the term psychopath.

I used it initially in its connotative vernacular my apologies to anyone else who takes issue with it

but maybe we could gather our attention back to the topic rather than if the innocent technical misuse of a term insults the memory of the deceased
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:No one said they represent Islam in general, including me, so stop with that. In fact Zamfir did a great job of pointing that out for anyone who might of been confused by your post, so why bring it up again?

I'm not going to rehash the discussion on tolerance of intolerance here, there are a few other places that discussion has already happened. Suffice to say that if you believe the removal of ideology that harms society to be 'about the dumbest thing you can do' you don't want to live in the world I want to live in. I'm not really sure what world you want to live in but seemingly it is one that values cultures that self-identify - lets just take the most recent significant examples in the States - in bigotry sexual orientation or gender identity and creationism. I don't even need to take your statement to the obvious conclusions end thoughtless genocidal or slaving cultures to show how flawed it is. There are ideas that we should look down on, does that make a bigot? Toward ideas or cultures that influence people to respond to satire with murder, I most certainly am, and I find it sad that you aren't.


ZCorp, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you for, or are you against the oppression of Muslims in France? If you're against the oppression of Muslims and if you're against Islamaphobia... then we're on the same page and we can agree on something for once.

CorruptUser wrote:
kingofdreams wrote:I'm not pretending the murder happens in a vacuum. The point remains 12 were killed ostensibly for a cause that said murderers are undermining. I'm all for reconciling both sides of the divide, but the actors in this instance don't represent either side of secular / islamic conflict. These 3 are unwell. Labeling them such isn't a refuge its a statement that these acts aren't tolerable.


If their cause is "scare people away from criticizing Islam", no, they are not undermining their cause. Quite the opposite in fact. Remember how South Park had an episode with Mohammed in it and no one cared, but then a Danish newspaper published some cartoons, the Islamic world rioted and 140 people were killed, and suddenly South Park couldn't show Mohammed in it anymore?


Ahmed Akkari was the Danish man responsible for bringing up the cartoons in the Muslim world. He later regretted bringing up the issue, and called the cartoonist to personally apologize for fanning the flames.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby kingofdreams » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:45 pm UTC

Studios and publishers and the like will act to mitigate risk and loss, but if the objective was to prevent such work from occurring in the future, I don't know if the reactionary violence to the Danish cartoon was a success.

It may have been in the form of dissociated internet based anonymous parody, but from my perspective such certainly increased in the wake of the violence, and particularly as a result of the south park cancellation (funnily enough they probably have a particularly irreverent viewership)
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:46 pm UTC

kingofdreams wrote:quite frankly I didn't notice your earlier issue with the use of the term psychopath.

I used it initially in its connotative vernacular my apologies to anyone else who takes issue with it

but maybe we could gather our attention back to the topic rather than if the innocent technical misuse of a term insults the memory of the deceased

You are not innocent of your comment nor was criticism of it technical pedantry. When you blame or relate a course of action on something that didn't cause it you harm the discussion surrounding it. This most likely happened because there is a culture that is intolerant of satire of their beliefs, not because they were psychopaths. For those of us who want to live in a world that fights against such a culture, so that we can live in a world better than that, recognizing the cause of it is important. This means not just writing it off as the actions of a psychopath, and to show such apathy toward the actual cause harms our ability to respond rationally to this event.

Discussing the cause of this event is certainly giving attention to the topic.

------------------------------
KnightExemplar wrote:ZCorp, I have no idea what you're talking about.

That doesn't surprise me, please try actually reading my post.

Are you for, or are you against the oppression of Muslims in France? If you're against the oppression of Muslims and if you're against Islamaphobia... then we're on the same page and we can agree on something for once.

Didn't we already cover how this isn't a general Muslim thing nor is it a general religious thing, why are you going back to that again?
I'm for oppressing/shunning/looking down on/valuing less/educating cultures and ideals that influence people to respond to satire with murder. If you bothered to read my post you would already understand this, as you just directly quoted me saying almost exactly this. It could also be easily inferred by my first post in this thread.
Last edited by Zcorp on Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:04 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby kingofdreams » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:02 am UTC

Then rather than say that they are acting irrationally and immorally, contravening the teaching of islam in a manner that seems devoid of sense. I will say that murder with motive is still murder, and that killing to protect a progenitor, whose visual representation is anathema principally to stop idolatrous worship of him, is so alien an interpretation of a moral schemata that I cannot see the sense of it.
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:15 am UTC

Zcorp wrote:Didn't we already cover how this isn't a general Muslim thing nor is it a general religious thing, why are you going back to that again?


My original post has to do with religious tolerance and its state in France. (Although, it was from the perspective of an outsider. A special caveat because I know outsiders often get things wrong when looking into other countries)

It is clear to me now that you aren't talking about religious tolerance. But I was confused, because you called out my post specifically. If you aren't talking about religious tolerance, then... I guess I agree with you??

I think its best if we dropped the subject here and let the thread run its course. I think I understand what you're trying to say now.

That doesn't surprise me, please try actually reading my post.


I would request that you do the same to mine. If you aren't going to be talking about my post when you respond to it, please don't quote me. It confuses the issue significantly. I was confused (and still am honestly), because you've responded to my post about France's state of religious tolerance... with... something that has absolutely nothing to do with religious tolerance.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:20 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby azaethral » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:17 am UTC

sardia wrote:Its an awful price to pay for free speech. I know I'm a proponent of free speech, but a mass shooting is not what I predicted. I was expecting an angry protest or death threats.


So let's see if I have this straight. Your logic is basically that free speech was the root cause of the attack? Ergo the absence of terrorism is indicative of the absence of free speech (ie a totalitarian regime)? Ergo terrorism is justifiable as a necessity of democracy? One thing is for sure, you won't dissuade many conspiracy enthusiasts that way.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:30 am UTC

kingofdreams wrote:Then rather than say that they are acting irrationally and immorally, contravening the teaching of islam in a manner that seems devoid of sense. I will say that murder with motive is still murder, and that killing to protect a progenitor, whose visual representation is anathema principally to stop idolatrous worship of him, is so alien an interpretation of a moral schemata that I cannot see the sense of it.

Now we are actually getting off topic, but a lot of the distaste for religion in secular society comes from the unfortunate reality that this is not an alien interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

That such ideas are kind of stated and often interpreted to mean such things lends itself toward immature beliefs such as murdering people because they satire your beliefs. This isn't even irrational or immortal behavior for people who hold such beliefs. This could very well result in less satire of Islam, as CU has pointed out. If it does they most likely consider it the good thing to do. The problem relating to rationality is the lack of it in developing the beliefs, no as much in how they go about fulfilling them.

--------------

KnightExemplar wrote:
Zcorp wrote:Didn't we already cover how this isn't a general Muslim thing nor is it a general religious thing, why are you going back to that again?


My original post has to do with religious tolerance and its state in France. (Although, it was from the perspective of an outsider. A special caveat because I know outsiders often get things wrong when looking into other countries)

It is clear to me now that you aren't talking about religious tolerance. But I was confused, because you called out my post specifically. If you aren't talking about religious tolerance, then... I guess I agree with you??

I'm steel-manning your point about religious intolerance, as you over-simplified many secular distastes for religion. I'm then responding to that steel-man. Some of this problem I address above in my response to kingofdreams. Beliefs such as 'murder people who satire your religion', 'it is blasphemous to create images of living things' or 'having gay sex is sinful' are generally tied to religion. Most ideas of sanctity today come from religion.

Fighting against those beliefs is often associated with the religion, and the religion often fights back. Sometimes a group in the religion adapts and moves away from those interpretations and sometimes it doesn't. So in regards to your statement of the oppression in religion in France, I used context to guide me through 3 rounds of back and forth (but talking about this specific event and the thinking and behavior that likely led to it, which I could of been clearer with instead of expecting people to infer it). There are cultures that belief that you should respond to satire with murder, they are a subset of a religion, of a specific religion. Fighting against that belief could be and is often understood as oppression of religion, as you seemed to have understood it in your post.

I tried to make it about the behavior and ideas that are specific to this event. I believe, along with the people you imagine that live in France, that such ideas and behavior are something to be oppressed (again I use the word oppressed because you did, and instead of giving the list of alternative strategies again, I'll just say they should be changed). These are things that should be fought against, I'm sorry you don't feel the same way, and that it scares you that they might lash out, but that does not mean we stop trying to remove such terrible behavior and ideas from society. Doing so is an example to go along with CU's of terrorism working.
Last edited by Zcorp on Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:52 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:36 am UTC

There are cultures that belief that you should respond to satire with murder, they are a subset of a religion, of a specific religion. Fighting against that belief could be and is often understood as oppression of religion, as you seemed to have understood it in your post.


Erm... except this train of logic completely misrepresents my point of view. How about this. Instead of assuming you know what I'm my point is, ask me questions next time.

Or state it explicitly. IE: I believe a stronger form of your argument to be X. X is still wrong however.

It will save us much time in our next round of discussion. Steel-man is a good debate tool, but I'm still here. If you are going to morph the argument, please do so with my recognition next time, so that I can keep up. I'm generally happy with people attacking the strong-point of my arguments, and I'm generally accepting of this technique. But this time, I totally didn't get where you were going. In any case, I can agree to the intent of your posts. But I'm still peeved that I didn't know what was going on. Whether it was my fault for not reading hard enough, or your fault is outside the scope. Lets just try harder next time to communicate more clearly. In any case, I'll step out of the discussion now so that the rest of its thread can run its course.

TL;DR: I can agree to your point, at least with the points that are relevant to this thread.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:41 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:40 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
There are cultures that belief that you should respond to satire with murder, they are a subset of a religion, of a specific religion. Fighting against that belief could be and is often understood as oppression of religion, as you seemed to have understood it in your post.


Erm... except this train of logic completely misrepresents my point of view. How about this. Instead of assuming you know what I'm my point is, ask me questions next time.

It will save us much time in our next round of discussion. Steel-man is a good debate tool, but I'm still here. If you are going to morph the argument, please do so with my recognition next time, so that I can keep up.

It would of taken more time, this time it took 1 post. The problem is you failed to read/understand my second post given what was said in the first post.

What then was the point of bringing up religious intolerance, and a secular/religious 'war' - they had one of those 200 years ago, and conflict, political and otherwise, in relation to it hasn't really stopped since - if it was not to discuss what that perceived intolerance means culturally in to the future of France and what course of action should be taken and why?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:45 am UTC

Zcorp wrote:What then was the point of bringing up religious intolerance, and a secular/religious 'war' - they had one of those 200 years ago, and conflict in relation to it hasn't really stopped since - if it was not to discuss what that perceived in tolerance means culturally in to the future of France and what course of action should be taken and why?


Zcorp, I seriously would like to respond to your post one more time. But clearly, a dissection of my argument techniques is outside the scope of the Charlie Hebdo discussion. I realized I attacked your debate style first, so I'll compromise and give you the last word on this subject. Truce?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:47 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Zcorp wrote:What then was the point of bringing up religious intolerance, and a secular/religious 'war' - they had one of those 200 years ago, and conflict in relation to it hasn't really stopped since - if it was not to discuss what that perceived in tolerance means culturally in to the future of France and what course of action should be taken and why?


Zcorp, I seriously would like to respond to your post one more time. But clearly, a dissection of my argument techniques is outside the scope of the Charlie Hebdo attack. I realized I attacked your debate style so I'll give you the last word on this subject. Truce?

Who dissected your argument techniques?
You said I missed your point on bringing up religious intolerance.

"Erm... except this train of logic completely misrepresents my point of view. How about this. Instead of assuming you know what I'm my point is, ask me questions next time."

I asked you to tell me your point, since I missed it. How do you believe this has anything to do with me talking about your argument techniques, seriously where does this stuff come from, I never once said anything about how you argue.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:55 am UTC

The point ZCorp, was to generate discussion on the subject. In hindsight (especially after Zamfir's post), it generates a discussion I'd rather not march towards. So I'm retreating from my previous words and giving you the "win" if you want it.

My opinions are fickle ZCorp, they can change within hours. You can call my previous words pointless, as they kind of are at this point.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:24 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The point ZCorp, was to generate discussion on the subject. In hindsight (especially after Zamfir's post), it generates a discussion I'd rather not march towards. So I'm retreating from my previous words and giving you the "win" if you want it.

My opinions are fickle ZCorp, they can change within hours. You can call my previous words pointless, as they kind of are at this point.

This isn't debate club, people here aren't holding discussion to have a win. They are holding discussion to inform, learn and otherwise improve themselves or others.

I'm not interested in beating you. I do hope you and other people reading this come away with greater understanding why Rationalist society might oppose cultures that thrive on irrationality.I hope we can agree that we should be bigots toward cultures that respond to satire with murder. That this was a tragedy and instead of letting extremists win by reacting with fear and stopping that 'oppression' we should respond to this with more vigor in changing those beliefs, not less.

Or if you disagree, I hope to learn why, to see if there is anything I've overlooked or thought poorly about in forming my opinion or to correct yours.

Edit:
Spoilered for off topic
Spoiler:
I strongly disagree with a lot of the conclusions you reach Like in this post:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=107696&start=480#p3716501

However, you also are one of the people on here who provides consistently good links, like in the same post. I'm not trying to beat you, you just often say things definitively that you shouldn't and it frustrates me to no end that I seem to need to repeat myself 3-4 times for you to read something.

and another side note. I mean the c to be lower case, it was a poorly thought out user name, an attempt at scorp with a Z, not a name I've used before or since.
Last edited by Zcorp on Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:36 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby kingofdreams » Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:32 am UTC

Hamyd Mourad (the one from Reims), has surrendered to cops.
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Cradarc » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:45 am UTC

Wow, we got a lot of contentious people on these forums. I think there would have been far less discord if everyone just posted their opinion on the event first. Issues with the other people's opinion should be voiced politely. As Zamfir demonstrated, it is possible to be blunt yet polite, not to mention concise as well.

Zcorp,
After reading your opinion on the issue, I think you pretty much agree with everyone else. The only difference is you were more long-winded by inserting a "rational vs irrational" element into things*.
For my part, I was not aware that "psychopath" is such a loaded word. I used it to simply mean someone who is incapable of empathy and prone to violence. I used "misguided" to mean someone who strongly believes an action is moral when society sees it otherwise. Whether or not something is misguided is of course subjective.

*Speaking of which, what determines rationality and irrationality when it comes to social behavior? Isn't that a complex issue as well? If someone makes the claim that the terrorists were acting rationally, could that not be a valid argument?
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zcorp » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:52 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:For my part, I was not aware that "psychopath" is such a loaded word. I used it to simply mean someone who is incapable of empathy and prone to violence.

It is technically loaded, no one good would use that term professionally anymore, but popularly it means just what you meant it to, and the popular usage is what I took issue with. We have no evidence that they are incapable of empathy nor prone to violence. Suggesting that they did this because they lack empathy or are prone to violence diminishes all that we do know. This is bigger than that, so lets not suggest it is something so petty when we have no evidence for that.


*Speaking of which, what determines rationality and irrationality when it comes to social behavior? Isn't that a complex issue as well? If someone makes the claim that the terrorists were acting rationally, could that not be a valid argument?

I did make that claim, and they are arguably acting rationally, we would need to know more to be sure. However, their goals, their beliefs, their ideology are not a rational one. They just might be trying to achieve goals of their quite irrational ideology rationally.

The first question is a long discussion for another topic, probably in SB.

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby kingofdreams » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:10 am UTC

Image

edit: theres an awful lot of cartoonist response
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6301
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Thesh » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:49 am UTC

Perhaps this wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Obama's poor response to Benghazi.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/01/0 ... i-i/202041

Also,

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/01 ... 1777555075

Seriously, fuck this shit. These people are fucking disgusting. If it were up to me, I would seize every dime of their assets and send them into exile.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Cradarc » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:57 am UTC

Thanks for the clarification Zcorp. I don't sense you are personally offended by my use of the word. So I think you were actually indirectly answering my question:
Are they psychopathic or just horribly misguided? Do they truly feel what they did was just or were they acting on rage?

I do not know what are the murders' true intentions/perspectives. This is why my thoughts were in the form of questions. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to say they could be psychopaths. People who think "normally" tend not resort to unwarranted violence. You think it is highly unlikely that they're psychopaths in a very specific sense of the word. I think that is a fair point.

The first question is a long discussion for another topic, probably in SB.

I agree, but my question was a response to this statement:
I do hope you and other people reading this come away with greater understanding why Rationalist society might oppose cultures that thrive on irrationality.

What are "cultures that thrive on irrationality"?
Without elaboration, one possible interpretation is:
"I hope I have educated you on why reasonable people might be Islamophobic", which I presume is not what you are trying to say.

I don't think the sharing of opinions, regardless how controversial, will every shut down discussion. There is nothing to discuss if we can only stick to facts and make vague statements in fear of offending someone.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:43 am UTC

Hmm, I didn't realize that the shooters were still at large. I was hearing reports that this was a bigger shooting, with three suspects. Clearly, that makes this a fairly well planned out terror attack. My question then, is how "big" is it? Is it a few French Muslims who are frustrated? Close to a lone-wolf attack? Or is this a larger-scale ISIS or Al Qaeda related plot?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Lucrece » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:16 am UTC

France's Muslim population is actually 7% of the total population. The numbers are meaningless anyways when people from the left pretend that this is something other than a religious tantrum that results in the murder of people for blasphemy. Penalizing blasphemy with death is actually a fairly longstanding and widespread practice throughout the world, it just so happens that leftists living in western developed countries can't quite wrap their heads around societies where transgressions against a religion result in grave penalty.
Spoiler:
Image

Image

(Pew Global Attitudes Survey)

Spoilered for size by Zamfir

How nice of the Associated Press to take a shit on the dead by sanitizing their work to accommodate progressive sensibilities -- imagine being charged with "islamophobia" by publishing works of a magazine who just as liberally savaged Christianity.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7508
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:10 am UTC

It just so happens that leftists living in western developed countries can't quite wrap their heads around societies where transgressions against a religion result in grave penalty.


I assume talking about the staff of Charlie Hebdo? They seem to be the only leftists involved. This was not the first attack against them, they realised quite well that some people might respond with violence.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Lucrece » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:32 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
It just so happens that leftists living in western developed countries can't quite wrap their heads around societies where transgressions against a religion result in grave penalty.


I assume talking about the staff of Charlie Hebdo? They seem to be the only leftists involved. This was not the first attack against them, they realised quite well that some people might respond with violence.


Have you seen the interview with the "terrorism analyst" in MSNBC or even the stories that ran on CNN? They're actually suggesting that the victims hold some sort of blame for needlessly offending a vastly populated religion. Leftist media has been tip-toeing around the fact that the attack was influenced by a follower of Islam, with religious justification. They were very happy to note the religious ties with the massacre in Norway, but in this case people are coming out with articles such as Vox.com writing off these terrorists as mere crazy people doing bad things. Clearly not tied to a religious sentiment, because people who kill other people on religious grounds are "insane".

CNN has Ayaan Hirsi Ali to come talk on the network with Anderson Cooper about the costs freedom of speech yet the images of the magazine shown on the network are blurred. All for fear of offending the religious.
Last edited by Lucrece on Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:38 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Derek
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Derek » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:36 am UTC

This attack is particularly upsetting to me because it's an attack directly on freedom of expression. The attackers are saying that they believe their "right" to not be offended supercedes anyone else's right to make fun of their religion, and they believe the penalty for violating their "right" is death. If there is any silver lining to this, I hope it renews people's interest in defending free expression and shows how backwards any "right to not be offended" is.

Lucrece wrote:How nice of the Associated Press to take a shit on the dead by sanitizing their work to accommodate progressive sensibilities -- imagine being charged with "islamophobia" by publishing works of a magazine who just as liberally savaged Christianity.

Context? This is the first mention of the AP in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Zamfir wrote:
It just so happens that leftists living in western developed countries can't quite wrap their heads around societies where transgressions against a religion result in grave penalty.

I assume talking about the staff of Charlie Hebdo? They seem to be the only leftists involved. This was not the first attack against them, they realised quite well that some people might respond with violence.

I don't think he's talking about the Charlie Hebdo staff. I think he's talking about leftists who don't see radical Islam as a serious threat.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Charlie Hebdo attack

Postby Lucrece » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:45 am UTC

Derek wrote:
Lucrece wrote:How nice of the Associated Press to take a shit on the dead by sanitizing their work to accommodate progressive sensibilities -- imagine being charged with "islamophobia" by publishing works of a magazine who just as liberally savaged Christianity.

Context? This is the first mention of the AP in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... toons.html

And FWIW I've voted left candidates all of my life. In case anyone feels like suggesting I'm opportunistically attacking an opposite tribe. I'm just sick of the coalition I joined, which historically has stood against Christian theocracy, so happily has been co-opted and bows in reverence to a religious voting bloc for political self-preservation (can't afford to piss of Muslims, after all they don't vote Republican and we need allies on the Israel-Palestine discourse that is so popular for showing off leftist cred).
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Deva, The Great Hippo and 15 guests