7 ms·

The West Is Choked by Fear

50 points by bluebird 17y ago

pan69 17y ago
Hmm. Important stuff. But not really hackers news material. Or do I misunderstand the intention of this post?
- mixmax 17y ago
  It's one of those borderline posts - on the one hand it isn't really hacker news, but on the other hand it's important and about basic freedom. Which is dear to hackers. I think it has merit,so I upvoted it.
theotherside 17y ago
I am a Muslim. I created a new account, as some will hold that against me. This is just picking on someone who is too weak, uneducated and inarticulate to be able to defend themselves. Fuck freedom of speech, it's not what this is about. You don't have, and never had, the right to slander someone in order to pick a fight. If I went to a bar, found the biggest and dumbest asshole in there and called his mother a filthy whore, guess how much sympathy I would get in court. Yet this is exactly what the newspaper did, in order to demonstrate how "choked by fear" we all should be. The fact that the guy has to fear for his life is ridiculous, but what does that prove? That large part of Muslim populations are insecure and hypersensitive? They are also predominantly impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden, not to mention constantly in the crosshairs, perhaps things are connected? Treating individuals like this with a bit of sensitivity would be the civilized thing to do, rather than prodding them for a cheap thrill, or childishly insisting on the injustice of their uncouthness. I am so sick of the hysteria, grandstanding and hypocrisy in this debate.
- Rod 17y ago
  Danish people tend to be confrontational. At least that's the impression I got when I lived there. Such a cartoon could only come from Denmark. It's offensive and distasteful, and the author should have kept in mind that insulting 1 billion people is a bad idea. His mistake. However, what I do know is that Westerners in Muslim countries tend to play by the local rules (I am not talking of the U.S. Military in Iraq). By contrast, many Muslims in Western Europe refuse to accept the European culture. Is there racism a part of the problem? Yes, sure it is. But there's more to it: if you reject the local culture, the locals will reject you. Of course, the same goes for Westerners living in Muslim countries. A difference is that Westerners in Muslim countries are not at the bottom of the barrel as often as Muslims in the West are. In my view it's as simple as this: adapt to our customs, or move back to where you came from. We, Europeans, do not like Muslim foreigners telling us that our women are whores, that we are spiritually dead, that we should not drink, etc. I know a bunch of Muslims living in Europe and, not surprisingly, the ones who are fully integrated in their host society and who have Western friends are the ones who accept the local culture and don't try to preach that their values are any better.
  - jimbokun 17y ago
    What's wrong with them preaching that their values are better? As long as they are not trying to coerce you to live the way they do, why do you care? Let them preach all they want, and just ignore them. I frankly believe here in the U.S. we do a better job of assimilating people because we do not subscribe to "adapt to our customs, or move back to where you came from." We demand the freedom to believe whatever we want, as long as we grant others the same privilege. Yes, the current Republican party does not subscribe to that ethos. But that is part of the reason why they are losing so many elections recently. The problem is not that they are Christians with strongly held beliefs that they express openly. The problem is that more and more they try to force those beliefs on others, whether their fellow citizens or Muslims around the world. (This is not the only reason they are losing, a million caveats apply, etc. etc.) Ironically, even with the U.S. wars in Muslim countries still ongoing, I still believe that Muslims are better integrated into U.S. society than they are in Europe. This is because they know that they are free to worship here as they please and freely express what they think, and that trying to control what others can say or think will not be tolerated. This is all just my opinion, of course, and am open to evidence to the contrary.
    - philk 17y ago
      I suspect that there are actually a couple of other reasons why muslims are better integrated into the US than Europe: a) It's more geographically remote from Islamic countries hence you have fewer unskilled immigrants turning up. b) American has less in the way of welfare so immigrants (and their children) have to get jobs. Working with fellow citizens makes you realise that you have something in common with them and encourages integration.
    - Rod 17y ago
      "What's wrong with them preaching that their values are better?" Suppose that you invite people to your house. Rules of etiquette say that the guests should not tell you how to live your life. Nobody likes to be told what to do, nor how to live. Except for Muslims in the Balkans, most Muslims in Europe are guests. Guests should keep their mouths shut until asked for their opinion. The Muslims I know who have adapted really well to Europe are the ones who adopt the attitude: these people do not know what Islam is, they think Islam is suicide bombers... so, as an ambassador of my religion, I will tell them what Islam is, without trying to force my belief system on them, so that they get a clearer picture of the enormous complexity and diversity of the Islamic world. By contrast, the morons who claim that it's OK to kill a cartoonist, and who claim that Muslims are victims, are the ones who give a bad image of Islam. "I frankly believe here in the U.S. we do a better job of assimilating people because we do not subscribe to "adapt to our customs, or move back to where you came from." We demand the freedom to believe whatever we want, as long as we grant others the same privilege." I live in the U.S. now and I disagree. The U.S. is a country of immigrants, and one of the unwritten requirements to live in the American society is that you conform to the norm. You don't need to lose your culture, but you need to mellow it down in your public life. Sorry, but the U.S. being as tolerant as you claim is a nice dream, imho. "Ironically, even with the U.S. wars in Muslim countries still ongoing, I still believe that Muslims are better integrated into U.S. society than they are in Europe." I agree, but not for the reasons you gave. Europe has millenia of history. In Europe, nationality and ethnicity are too deeply connected. Though I am from Western Europe and lived in Denmark, I don't think I would ever feel Danish even if I lived there for 50 years. Being a U.S. citizen is much more cultural than ethnical. The U.S. is more welcoming to all immigrants because of this, not only to Muslims, but to everyone. And it has more to do with the ethnical aspect than with freedom of worship. Do you really think that Muslims in Europe have no freedom of worship?
- rbanffy 17y ago
  "Fuck freedom of speech, it's not what this is about." It's exactly what this is about. As an almost Atheist (lacking the needed faith to really be one) I find the Quram mildly disturbing (as I do with other sacred texts, the Bible included) in that it proposes to be the absolute truth that admits no questioning. I respect, however, your right to your faith. You may believe in whatever you like, and I will defend your right to it against those who may want to take it away from you. But, in return for my respect, I demand from you the same respect. If I believe the cartoons are funny and worthy of publication, I demand you respect my right to draw, discuss or even (if the authors so agree) to reproduce them. By hiding behind the "biggest and dumbest asshole" metaphor, you excuse yourself, and the intolerant people who find it right to kill authors for offending their faith, from the obligation to respect others. Muslims are not the dumbest and obviously can learn to live in societies that don't share religiously intolerant laws. Some of the cartoons were funny. I had a couple good laughs out of them. Would I be offended if they were about Christ (I was raised a Catholic)? No way. Would I be offended if they had been about scientists (I am an almost-Atheist)? Of course not. They are cartoons, meant to be funny and to, sometimes, question beliefs. If your faith cannot withstand questioning then, perhaps, you should question yourself how deep and true it really is.
  - lucifer 17y ago
    "I find the [it] mildly disturbing [...] in that it proposes to be the absolute truth that admits no questioning." I have a suggestion for you: Head over to Germany and question the "absolute truth" of holocaust: numbers, methods, facts, etc. Lets see how long your "freedom of speech" is respected. (Will post your arrest and incarceration news here on HN!)
    - rglovejoy 17y ago
      The difference is that the Holocaust is something that really happened, with eyewitnesses and documents to prove it. The stuff in the Bible or the Koran is a matter of faith, and can't be proven by the scientific method. Personally, I think that the Bible and the Koran are a bunch of fairy tales written a long time ago to frighten people into doing things that will keep them from going to hell.
- mseebach 17y ago
  > Fuck freedom of speech, it's not what this is about. You don't have, and never had, the right to slander someone in order to pick a fight. Yes it is. And yes I have. At least I have a right to do so without fearing for my life. What I don't have, is a right to have any friends when I'm done expressing myself. > If I went to a bar, found the biggest and dumbest asshole in there and called his mother a filthy whore, guess how much sympathy I would get in court. Not much, but the guy would get a conviction for voilence. > Yet this is exactly what the newspaper did, in order to demonstrate how "choked by fear" we all should be. No, it's not. Discussion a religion in the public sphere is no different from discussing a politician in the public sphere. It might, in both cases, be impolite, but no-one should expect physical violence because of it. > They are also predominantly impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden, not to mention constantly in the crosshairs, perhaps things are connected? Maybe, but I can tell you that the Muslim community in Denmark isn't exactly doing itself any favours by refusing to condemn the attack. Absolutely, there is pundit after pundit lined up, trying to paint every Muslim in the world as violent fundamentalists just waiting to strap on a bomb and go blow some children up, and that makes me sick. But the Muslim community needs to stand up for itself and denounce and condemn the people committing these crimes, and stop making veiled defences for attempted murder.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    We can hope willingness to blow oneself up to martyrdom could be a genetic trait. If it were, in a couple generations we would get our gene pool completely rid of it. Unfortunately, I believe such anti-social behavior is more nurture than nature...
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - bad_user 17y ago
      > * No, you don't, as slander is illegal* Slander is only illegal when the statements are said to be true (and can be proven that they are false) ... humor and satire newspapers and magazines can publish whatever they want ... both in the US and the EU. > The point is, as you conceded, that everyone would agree I was stupid and had it coming. No, there's no justification for violence. Ever. If you're a rambling idiot that can't hold it together ... people will punish you anyway by ignoring you. You can lose your friends, your wife, even your job. And this form of social punishment is more just for the kind of situation you're referring to ... especially since it all goes away when you learn to behave well in society. > Stop making me responsible for the actions and opinions of people I don't know or have anything to do with. And yet, you're identifying yourself as a Muslim, and defend those that issued death threats, fucking freedom of speech to the detriment of those that fought for it and society as a whole. Of course you are responsible.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > they are also predominantly impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden, not to mention constantly in the crosshairs, perhaps things are connected? Many Muslims I meet do exhibit these traits; however I think it is the product of their faith (hardline Christians are much the same - but not as bade) rather than societies attitude to them.
- tomhoward 17y ago
  They are also predominantly impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden, not to mention constantly in the crosshairs, perhaps things are connected? Plenty of other populations are "impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden" but don't bully and blackmail the rest of the world into being sensitive to their superstitions. This only ever became an issue through the opportunism of theocratic leaders who routinely promote outrage and self-pity in their downtrodden populations as a way of blaming the west for everything that's wrong in their societies.
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    "Plenty of other populations are "impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden" but don't bully and blackmail the rest of the world into being sensitive to their superstitions." This is the killer argument for the "critics of Islam" side. After all, lots of Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Native Americans etc are dirt poor, and many of them live under very oppressive regimes. They don't go around blowing up airliners or flying planes into buildings and claiming sanction from their religions. Colonialism isn't enough of an answer either. Many countries have come out of colonialism without a pan-generational rage against the west. Hindu or Buddhist immigrants to the United States don't rage against "immoral" culture and kill innocents to prove their cultural superiority. So prima facie there does seem to be something screwy about Islam that encourages such behavior (but I won't explore this any further on this post). This doesn't say anything about individual muslims though. Once can claim communism is a terrible way to structure a society and still believe that individual communists can be decent people. This is the subtlety both sides (Islam "bashers" and apologists) lose sight of. The bashers want all muslims to be demonized and deported and so on, while the pro Islam folks want everyone else to tread softly around Islam, refrain from criticizing its "holy" books and "prophet" and treat it with "respect". Both arguments are obnoxious.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Stop modding theotherside down. This discussion is important.
  - mtinkerhess 17y ago
    Agreed. Comments should be voted according to how much they add to the discussion, not by whether you agree with the author's opinion.
    - bad_user 17y ago
      I don't agree ... votes should be given for any reason a reader wants. Sometimes the actual post is so stupid and off-topic that it doesn't deserve a response ... and the rating system is there in the first place to distinguish between the good posts and the bad ones. Granted ... this particular comment was pretty much on topic, and contains a very popular point-of-view in many circles ... so personally I haven't down-voted "theotherside", preferring to give him a reply instead.
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        You should never downvote a comment you can demolish with an argument. It's not as educational.
  - philk 17y ago
    Sorry, but no. Freedom of speech is a really important thing and someone who says "Fuck freedom of speech" is not someone I can reasonably agree with. Also, the fact that he's created a new account just to post this discredits his arguments further. "I disagree with this article but not enough to lose a couple of points of karma".
    - theotherside 17y ago
      I actually meant "fuck this being about freedom of speech". I made a new account because I run a business, and don't want that associated with my own personal beliefs.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Uh, btw. Can I just remind people that the FAQ deliberately talks about avoiding common flame topics (such as religion) Just to be aware; don't get too "involved" :)
- bad_user 17y ago
  > I am a Muslim. I created a new account, as some will hold that against me I like people that can stand-up for their beliefs. The others are more or less cowards ... unless they have a good reason for it, like protecting their families. What's your excuse? Losing karma-points? > You don't have, and never had, the right to slander someone in order to pick a fight In the US and the EU ... satire and humor are not considered to be slander. > If I went to a bar, found the biggest and dumbest asshole in there and called his mother a filthy whore Personally I wouldn't get upset if you called all mothers filthy whores (since sometimes, there's some truth to that) ... at worst I would say that "it's not funny" and move along. > Treating individuals like this with a bit of sensitivity would be the civilized thing to do Yes, it would be civilized. But I also think misbehaviors should get some form of social punishment (as so should you, if you're picking fights for no reason at all). When a woman in some third-world country is beaten to death because she was unfaithful ... I guess, by some people's views, she had it coming also. Should we all be civilized to those that did it, because they are impoverished and uneducated ... and not condemn their actions? Also satire and humor are healthy ingredients for a healthy society ... if you haven't realized it, those comics may actually help in chilling the usage of those Muslim stereotypes. It's called reverse psychology ;)
- by 17y ago
  I would like you to consider Fatwa 87671 which says "Swearing is considered a debauchery and an immoral act". http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=87671&Option=FatwaId http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&... Is there an Islamic counter-argument to this position which you can provide to justify your use of language?
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  After reading the first line of your post, I was prepared to up-vote you since you were already negative, just on the principle of guaranteeing your free speech. However, the rest of your post was just poorly thought out, and deserves the downvotes you got, regardless of what side of the issue you're on. If I went to a bar, found the biggest and dumbest asshole in there and called his mother a filthy whore, guess how much sympathy I would get in court. You'll get a lot of sympathy. The courts (in America, anyway) do observe a doctrine of "fighting words", which incite irrational emotions in a person such that they lose control. This is analogous to what would happen were the defendent were unable to control himself due to some mental defect. The question at hand has nothing to do with fighting words. Since the threats are greatly separated in space and time, no excuse about a temporary loss of rationality can be used. The treats against the artist were fully premeditated. Legalities aside, defending the artist is the morally correct choice. The only way that we can grow as people and as a society -- and this pertains to both technology and to philosophy -- is by questioning our beliefs and our assumptions. Even when we are correct, we need and we deserve to prove it to ourselves. When we are offended, we can examine the injured belief, and the result should be either that we learn that we are wrong, or we verify to ourselves that our belief is true. Either way, we're better off. Do those offended by these cartoons have such weak faith that their faith will be damaged by them?
  - theotherside 17y ago
    Your criticism misses the mark, as I don't actually defend the violent reaction to the cartoons and have said as much. Also, this was never about questioning, as much as about the intention. You may or may not be aware that the newspaper solicited the cartoons, challenging the artists to make them as inflammatory as possible. It was a political and commercial stunt under the guise of a moral battle, making the whole thing even more despicable.
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      Also, this was never about questioning, as much as about the intention. You seem to be under the impression that it's possible to discern someone's intent, e.g., "prodding them for a cheap thrill", "it was a political and commercial stunt". Do you really contend that you have the vision into people's hearts, that you can discern their actual motivations? No, in reality you do not have, and cannot have, any inkling of the real reasons for any of a person's actions. But in any case, the freedom of expression, to challenge beliefs and assumptions, is in no way predicated on intent. Freedom is not reserved to those who are pure of heart. If it were only granted on the basis of someone approving its motivations, then an oppressor would only need to be dishonest, or mistaken, in judging those motivations. Freedom of expression is for everyone, and for all purposes.
toothcomb 17y ago
In the UK at least, we deal with difficult subjects through satire. But where do you draw the line? I am one for open - although much material on the web is offensive (as seen from me). I'd have rather the images were reprinted, and have the whole thing forgotten about. But there was some gesture of respect and sensitivity shown by the west deriding the work. The debate has also come up with the turn around of the BBC to allow the BNP on question time. So I think it is important to provide the material and the appropriate fora, and freedoms of speech. The herd and mob mentality is usually a result of ignorance. But it takes a long time for attitudes to change. In Britain in the eighties, people were still afraid to speak their minds or challenge the establishment. My father's attitudes have changed incredibly over the last 10 years. And I guess so have mine. My personal belief is that people can practice what they like, but with the following caveats: no harm to others, animals or the planet. I don't belong to any faith, but see myself as more 'Christian' then many practising Christians. People get lost in doctrine or the mob, and forget to question for themselves. Natural law is far simpler. The web provides an outlet for many voices, who's authority do you trust? Moderation requires some form of censorship. I'd rather it all open. I can't stand pruned forums, they feel like rigged referendums. It's just incredibly difficult wading through it all. As usually the average Joe, hasn't really anything much interesting to say. So is it fear or learned sensitivity?
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  But where do you draw the line? In a free society there should be no line. A person should be free to say absolutely anything. There is certainly a possibility of causing harm by way of your speech, but this should be handled post hoc, with a court determining damages. America partially observes this with a watered-down doctrine of prior restraint, but it's got enough exceptions that it's not worth so much.
tfh 17y ago
HN is not the right place for such a debate.
- viggity 17y ago
  I think a lot of hackers are interested in free speech issues. Myself included
akamaka 17y ago
I've heard the reasoning in this article before, and it's deeply flawed. It's true that we in the West have the right to offend, but being a troll doesn't make you a righteous defender of freedom.. Those cartoons weren't some type of brilliant artwork, they were simple trolling. While I'll stand up for someone's right to be a troll, they certainly shouldn't expect my support and respect. Instead, that is reserved for the millions who fought and died to establish and protect our freedoms in the first place.
- philk 17y ago
  If we aren't willing to stand up for unpleasant and offensive things then we aren't willing to stand up for freedom of speech at all. And frankly, having seen the cartoons, anyone who thinks the cartoonists deserve to either die or face attempts on their lives is a nutcase who we should be willing to stand up to.
  - InclinedPlane 17y ago
    Yes, precisely. If you have the freedom to do only things that absolutely no one else could take offense from then you do not have freedom.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  They need all of our support against those who are actively threatening violence as an appropriate response. Such people need to hear in no uncertain terms that we in the West will not tolerate violence in response to expression, even if it is a troll. If they want to condemn and denounce in no uncertain terms those cartoons or any other kind of expression, fine. But we must never tolerate acts of violence as an acceptable response to an act of speech.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- aerique 17y ago
  Trolling is a good detector for the maturity of your victims. Sensible people ignore it or are amused. Others respond seriously or go mental. Trick question: am I a troll or not?
grannyg00se 17y ago
If I think your beliefs are crazy, and I make fun of them, why should you be offended? If you're comfortable with yourself, you should be unaffected by my ignorance and in fact pity my lack of faith and doomed afterlife. Calling for my murder just makes you seem even crazier, and paints your beliefs as some fragile notion that must extinguish non-believers in order to exist. Of course, this is typical behaviour of many of the deeply religious. Murder in the name of religion is nothing new. We're seeing it more from the Muslims than the Christians in this century but the end result is still death in the name of religion. This isn't about freedom of speech. It's about insecure people who need to cling to fairy tales in order to get through life. It's pathetic. I pity them and their unhealthy need to believe in a fairy tale epilogue to their lives.

50 points by bluebird 17y ago

pan69 17y ago

Hmm. Important stuff. But not really hackers news material. Or do I misunderstand the intention of this post?

mixmax 17y ago
It's one of those borderline posts - on the one hand it isn't really hacker news, but on the other hand it's important and about basic freedom. Which is dear to hackers. I think it has merit,so I upvoted it.

theotherside 17y ago

I am a Muslim. I created a new account, as some will hold that against me. This is just picking on someone who is too weak, uneducated and inarticulate to be able to defend themselves. Fuck freedom of speech, it's not what this is about. You don't have, and never had, the right to slander someone in order to pick a fight. If I went to a bar, found the biggest and dumbest asshole in there and called his mother a filthy whore, guess how much sympathy I would get in court. Yet this is exactly what the newspaper did, in order to demonstrate how "choked by fear" we all should be. The fact that the guy has to fear for his life is ridiculous, but what does that prove? That large part of Muslim populations are insecure and hypersensitive? They are also predominantly impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden, not to mention constantly in the crosshairs, perhaps things are connected? Treating individuals like this with a bit of sensitivity would be the civilized thing to do, rather than prodding them for a cheap thrill, or childishly insisting on the injustice of their uncouthness. I am so sick of the hysteria, grandstanding and hypocrisy in this debate.

Rod 17y ago
Danish people tend to be confrontational. At least that's the impression I got when I lived there. Such a cartoon could only come from Denmark. It's offensive and distasteful, and the author should have kept in mind that insulting 1 billion people is a bad idea. His mistake. However, what I do know is that Westerners in Muslim countries tend to play by the local rules (I am not talking of the U.S. Military in Iraq). By contrast, many Muslims in Western Europe refuse to accept the European culture. Is there racism a part of the problem? Yes, sure it is. But there's more to it: if you reject the local culture, the locals will reject you. Of course, the same goes for Westerners living in Muslim countries. A difference is that Westerners in Muslim countries are not at the bottom of the barrel as often as Muslims in the West are. In my view it's as simple as this: adapt to our customs, or move back to where you came from. We, Europeans, do not like Muslim foreigners telling us that our women are whores, that we are spiritually dead, that we should not drink, etc. I know a bunch of Muslims living in Europe and, not surprisingly, the ones who are fully integrated in their host society and who have Western friends are the ones who accept the local culture and don't try to preach that their values are any better.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  What's wrong with them preaching that their values are better? As long as they are not trying to coerce you to live the way they do, why do you care? Let them preach all they want, and just ignore them. I frankly believe here in the U.S. we do a better job of assimilating people because we do not subscribe to "adapt to our customs, or move back to where you came from." We demand the freedom to believe whatever we want, as long as we grant others the same privilege. Yes, the current Republican party does not subscribe to that ethos. But that is part of the reason why they are losing so many elections recently. The problem is not that they are Christians with strongly held beliefs that they express openly. The problem is that more and more they try to force those beliefs on others, whether their fellow citizens or Muslims around the world. (This is not the only reason they are losing, a million caveats apply, etc. etc.) Ironically, even with the U.S. wars in Muslim countries still ongoing, I still believe that Muslims are better integrated into U.S. society than they are in Europe. This is because they know that they are free to worship here as they please and freely express what they think, and that trying to control what others can say or think will not be tolerated. This is all just my opinion, of course, and am open to evidence to the contrary.
  - philk 17y ago
    I suspect that there are actually a couple of other reasons why muslims are better integrated into the US than Europe: a) It's more geographically remote from Islamic countries hence you have fewer unskilled immigrants turning up. b) American has less in the way of welfare so immigrants (and their children) have to get jobs. Working with fellow citizens makes you realise that you have something in common with them and encourages integration.
  - Rod 17y ago
    "What's wrong with them preaching that their values are better?" Suppose that you invite people to your house. Rules of etiquette say that the guests should not tell you how to live your life. Nobody likes to be told what to do, nor how to live. Except for Muslims in the Balkans, most Muslims in Europe are guests. Guests should keep their mouths shut until asked for their opinion. The Muslims I know who have adapted really well to Europe are the ones who adopt the attitude: these people do not know what Islam is, they think Islam is suicide bombers... so, as an ambassador of my religion, I will tell them what Islam is, without trying to force my belief system on them, so that they get a clearer picture of the enormous complexity and diversity of the Islamic world. By contrast, the morons who claim that it's OK to kill a cartoonist, and who claim that Muslims are victims, are the ones who give a bad image of Islam. "I frankly believe here in the U.S. we do a better job of assimilating people because we do not subscribe to "adapt to our customs, or move back to where you came from." We demand the freedom to believe whatever we want, as long as we grant others the same privilege." I live in the U.S. now and I disagree. The U.S. is a country of immigrants, and one of the unwritten requirements to live in the American society is that you conform to the norm. You don't need to lose your culture, but you need to mellow it down in your public life. Sorry, but the U.S. being as tolerant as you claim is a nice dream, imho. "Ironically, even with the U.S. wars in Muslim countries still ongoing, I still believe that Muslims are better integrated into U.S. society than they are in Europe." I agree, but not for the reasons you gave. Europe has millenia of history. In Europe, nationality and ethnicity are too deeply connected. Though I am from Western Europe and lived in Denmark, I don't think I would ever feel Danish even if I lived there for 50 years. Being a U.S. citizen is much more cultural than ethnical. The U.S. is more welcoming to all immigrants because of this, not only to Muslims, but to everyone. And it has more to do with the ethnical aspect than with freedom of worship. Do you really think that Muslims in Europe have no freedom of worship?
rbanffy 17y ago
"Fuck freedom of speech, it's not what this is about." It's exactly what this is about. As an almost Atheist (lacking the needed faith to really be one) I find the Quram mildly disturbing (as I do with other sacred texts, the Bible included) in that it proposes to be the absolute truth that admits no questioning. I respect, however, your right to your faith. You may believe in whatever you like, and I will defend your right to it against those who may want to take it away from you. But, in return for my respect, I demand from you the same respect. If I believe the cartoons are funny and worthy of publication, I demand you respect my right to draw, discuss or even (if the authors so agree) to reproduce them. By hiding behind the "biggest and dumbest asshole" metaphor, you excuse yourself, and the intolerant people who find it right to kill authors for offending their faith, from the obligation to respect others. Muslims are not the dumbest and obviously can learn to live in societies that don't share religiously intolerant laws. Some of the cartoons were funny. I had a couple good laughs out of them. Would I be offended if they were about Christ (I was raised a Catholic)? No way. Would I be offended if they had been about scientists (I am an almost-Atheist)? Of course not. They are cartoons, meant to be funny and to, sometimes, question beliefs. If your faith cannot withstand questioning then, perhaps, you should question yourself how deep and true it really is.
- lucifer 17y ago
  "I find the [it] mildly disturbing [...] in that it proposes to be the absolute truth that admits no questioning." I have a suggestion for you: Head over to Germany and question the "absolute truth" of holocaust: numbers, methods, facts, etc. Lets see how long your "freedom of speech" is respected. (Will post your arrest and incarceration news here on HN!)
  - rglovejoy 17y ago
    The difference is that the Holocaust is something that really happened, with eyewitnesses and documents to prove it. The stuff in the Bible or the Koran is a matter of faith, and can't be proven by the scientific method. Personally, I think that the Bible and the Koran are a bunch of fairy tales written a long time ago to frighten people into doing things that will keep them from going to hell.
mseebach 17y ago
> Fuck freedom of speech, it's not what this is about. You don't have, and never had, the right to slander someone in order to pick a fight. Yes it is. And yes I have. At least I have a right to do so without fearing for my life. What I don't have, is a right to have any friends when I'm done expressing myself. > If I went to a bar, found the biggest and dumbest asshole in there and called his mother a filthy whore, guess how much sympathy I would get in court. Not much, but the guy would get a conviction for voilence. > Yet this is exactly what the newspaper did, in order to demonstrate how "choked by fear" we all should be. No, it's not. Discussion a religion in the public sphere is no different from discussing a politician in the public sphere. It might, in both cases, be impolite, but no-one should expect physical violence because of it. > They are also predominantly impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden, not to mention constantly in the crosshairs, perhaps things are connected? Maybe, but I can tell you that the Muslim community in Denmark isn't exactly doing itself any favours by refusing to condemn the attack. Absolutely, there is pundit after pundit lined up, trying to paint every Muslim in the world as violent fundamentalists just waiting to strap on a bomb and go blow some children up, and that makes me sick. But the Muslim community needs to stand up for itself and denounce and condemn the people committing these crimes, and stop making veiled defences for attempted murder.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  We can hope willingness to blow oneself up to martyrdom could be a genetic trait. If it were, in a couple generations we would get our gene pool completely rid of it. Unfortunately, I believe such anti-social behavior is more nurture than nature...
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - bad_user 17y ago
    > * No, you don't, as slander is illegal* Slander is only illegal when the statements are said to be true (and can be proven that they are false) ... humor and satire newspapers and magazines can publish whatever they want ... both in the US and the EU. > The point is, as you conceded, that everyone would agree I was stupid and had it coming. No, there's no justification for violence. Ever. If you're a rambling idiot that can't hold it together ... people will punish you anyway by ignoring you. You can lose your friends, your wife, even your job. And this form of social punishment is more just for the kind of situation you're referring to ... especially since it all goes away when you learn to behave well in society. > Stop making me responsible for the actions and opinions of people I don't know or have anything to do with. And yet, you're identifying yourself as a Muslim, and defend those that issued death threats, fucking freedom of speech to the detriment of those that fought for it and society as a whole. Of course you are responsible.
ErrantX 17y ago
> they are also predominantly impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden, not to mention constantly in the crosshairs, perhaps things are connected? Many Muslims I meet do exhibit these traits; however I think it is the product of their faith (hardline Christians are much the same - but not as bade) rather than societies attitude to them.
tomhoward 17y ago
They are also predominantly impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden, not to mention constantly in the crosshairs, perhaps things are connected? Plenty of other populations are "impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden" but don't bully and blackmail the rest of the world into being sensitive to their superstitions. This only ever became an issue through the opportunism of theocratic leaders who routinely promote outrage and self-pity in their downtrodden populations as a way of blaming the west for everything that's wrong in their societies.
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  "Plenty of other populations are "impoverished, uneducated and downtrodden" but don't bully and blackmail the rest of the world into being sensitive to their superstitions." This is the killer argument for the "critics of Islam" side. After all, lots of Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Native Americans etc are dirt poor, and many of them live under very oppressive regimes. They don't go around blowing up airliners or flying planes into buildings and claiming sanction from their religions. Colonialism isn't enough of an answer either. Many countries have come out of colonialism without a pan-generational rage against the west. Hindu or Buddhist immigrants to the United States don't rage against "immoral" culture and kill innocents to prove their cultural superiority. So prima facie there does seem to be something screwy about Islam that encourages such behavior (but I won't explore this any further on this post). This doesn't say anything about individual muslims though. Once can claim communism is a terrible way to structure a society and still believe that individual communists can be decent people. This is the subtlety both sides (Islam "bashers" and apologists) lose sight of. The bashers want all muslims to be demonized and deported and so on, while the pro Islam folks want everyone else to tread softly around Islam, refrain from criticizing its "holy" books and "prophet" and treat it with "respect". Both arguments are obnoxious.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
rbanffy 17y ago
Stop modding theotherside down. This discussion is important.
- mtinkerhess 17y ago
  Agreed. Comments should be voted according to how much they add to the discussion, not by whether you agree with the author's opinion.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    I don't agree ... votes should be given for any reason a reader wants. Sometimes the actual post is so stupid and off-topic that it doesn't deserve a response ... and the rating system is there in the first place to distinguish between the good posts and the bad ones. Granted ... this particular comment was pretty much on topic, and contains a very popular point-of-view in many circles ... so personally I haven't down-voted "theotherside", preferring to give him a reply instead.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      You should never downvote a comment you can demolish with an argument. It's not as educational.
- philk 17y ago
  Sorry, but no. Freedom of speech is a really important thing and someone who says "Fuck freedom of speech" is not someone I can reasonably agree with. Also, the fact that he's created a new account just to post this discredits his arguments further. "I disagree with this article but not enough to lose a couple of points of karma".
  - theotherside 17y ago
    I actually meant "fuck this being about freedom of speech". I made a new account because I run a business, and don't want that associated with my own personal beliefs.
ErrantX 17y ago
Uh, btw. Can I just remind people that the FAQ deliberately talks about avoiding common flame topics (such as religion) Just to be aware; don't get too "involved" :)
bad_user 17y ago
> I am a Muslim. I created a new account, as some will hold that against me I like people that can stand-up for their beliefs. The others are more or less cowards ... unless they have a good reason for it, like protecting their families. What's your excuse? Losing karma-points? > You don't have, and never had, the right to slander someone in order to pick a fight In the US and the EU ... satire and humor are not considered to be slander. > If I went to a bar, found the biggest and dumbest asshole in there and called his mother a filthy whore Personally I wouldn't get upset if you called all mothers filthy whores (since sometimes, there's some truth to that) ... at worst I would say that "it's not funny" and move along. > Treating individuals like this with a bit of sensitivity would be the civilized thing to do Yes, it would be civilized. But I also think misbehaviors should get some form of social punishment (as so should you, if you're picking fights for no reason at all). When a woman in some third-world country is beaten to death because she was unfaithful ... I guess, by some people's views, she had it coming also. Should we all be civilized to those that did it, because they are impoverished and uneducated ... and not condemn their actions? Also satire and humor are healthy ingredients for a healthy society ... if you haven't realized it, those comics may actually help in chilling the usage of those Muslim stereotypes. It's called reverse psychology ;)
by 17y ago
I would like you to consider Fatwa 87671 which says "Swearing is considered a debauchery and an immoral act". http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=87671&Option=FatwaId http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&... Is there an Islamic counter-argument to this position which you can provide to justify your use of language?
CWuestefeld 17y ago
After reading the first line of your post, I was prepared to up-vote you since you were already negative, just on the principle of guaranteeing your free speech. However, the rest of your post was just poorly thought out, and deserves the downvotes you got, regardless of what side of the issue you're on. If I went to a bar, found the biggest and dumbest asshole in there and called his mother a filthy whore, guess how much sympathy I would get in court. You'll get a lot of sympathy. The courts (in America, anyway) do observe a doctrine of "fighting words", which incite irrational emotions in a person such that they lose control. This is analogous to what would happen were the defendent were unable to control himself due to some mental defect. The question at hand has nothing to do with fighting words. Since the threats are greatly separated in space and time, no excuse about a temporary loss of rationality can be used. The treats against the artist were fully premeditated. Legalities aside, defending the artist is the morally correct choice. The only way that we can grow as people and as a society -- and this pertains to both technology and to philosophy -- is by questioning our beliefs and our assumptions. Even when we are correct, we need and we deserve to prove it to ourselves. When we are offended, we can examine the injured belief, and the result should be either that we learn that we are wrong, or we verify to ourselves that our belief is true. Either way, we're better off. Do those offended by these cartoons have such weak faith that their faith will be damaged by them?
- theotherside 17y ago
  Your criticism misses the mark, as I don't actually defend the violent reaction to the cartoons and have said as much. Also, this was never about questioning, as much as about the intention. You may or may not be aware that the newspaper solicited the cartoons, challenging the artists to make them as inflammatory as possible. It was a political and commercial stunt under the guise of a moral battle, making the whole thing even more despicable.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    Also, this was never about questioning, as much as about the intention. You seem to be under the impression that it's possible to discern someone's intent, e.g., "prodding them for a cheap thrill", "it was a political and commercial stunt". Do you really contend that you have the vision into people's hearts, that you can discern their actual motivations? No, in reality you do not have, and cannot have, any inkling of the real reasons for any of a person's actions. But in any case, the freedom of expression, to challenge beliefs and assumptions, is in no way predicated on intent. Freedom is not reserved to those who are pure of heart. If it were only granted on the basis of someone approving its motivations, then an oppressor would only need to be dishonest, or mistaken, in judging those motivations. Freedom of expression is for everyone, and for all purposes.

toothcomb 17y ago

In the UK at least, we deal with difficult subjects through satire. But where do you draw the line? I am one for open - although much material on the web is offensive (as seen from me). I'd have rather the images were reprinted, and have the whole thing forgotten about. But there was some gesture of respect and sensitivity shown by the west deriding the work. The debate has also come up with the turn around of the BBC to allow the BNP on question time. So I think it is important to provide the material and the appropriate fora, and freedoms of speech. The herd and mob mentality is usually a result of ignorance. But it takes a long time for attitudes to change. In Britain in the eighties, people were still afraid to speak their minds or challenge the establishment. My father's attitudes have changed incredibly over the last 10 years. And I guess so have mine. My personal belief is that people can practice what they like, but with the following caveats: no harm to others, animals or the planet. I don't belong to any faith, but see myself as more 'Christian' then many practising Christians. People get lost in doctrine or the mob, and forget to question for themselves. Natural law is far simpler. The web provides an outlet for many voices, who's authority do you trust? Moderation requires some form of censorship. I'd rather it all open. I can't stand pruned forums, they feel like rigged referendums. It's just incredibly difficult wading through it all. As usually the average Joe, hasn't really anything much interesting to say. So is it fear or learned sensitivity?

CWuestefeld 17y ago
But where do you draw the line? In a free society there should be no line. A person should be free to say absolutely anything. There is certainly a possibility of causing harm by way of your speech, but this should be handled post hoc, with a court determining damages. America partially observes this with a watered-down doctrine of prior restraint, but it's got enough exceptions that it's not worth so much.

tfh 17y ago

HN is not the right place for such a debate.

viggity 17y ago
I think a lot of hackers are interested in free speech issues. Myself included

akamaka 17y ago

I've heard the reasoning in this article before, and it's deeply flawed. It's true that we in the West have the right to offend, but being a troll doesn't make you a righteous defender of freedom.. Those cartoons weren't some type of brilliant artwork, they were simple trolling. While I'll stand up for someone's right to be a troll, they certainly shouldn't expect my support and respect. Instead, that is reserved for the millions who fought and died to establish and protect our freedoms in the first place.

philk 17y ago
If we aren't willing to stand up for unpleasant and offensive things then we aren't willing to stand up for freedom of speech at all. And frankly, having seen the cartoons, anyone who thinks the cartoonists deserve to either die or face attempts on their lives is a nutcase who we should be willing to stand up to.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  Yes, precisely. If you have the freedom to do only things that absolutely no one else could take offense from then you do not have freedom.
jimbokun 17y ago
They need all of our support against those who are actively threatening violence as an appropriate response. Such people need to hear in no uncertain terms that we in the West will not tolerate violence in response to expression, even if it is a troll. If they want to condemn and denounce in no uncertain terms those cartoons or any other kind of expression, fine. But we must never tolerate acts of violence as an acceptable response to an act of speech.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
aerique 17y ago
Trolling is a good detector for the maturity of your victims. Sensible people ignore it or are amused. Others respond seriously or go mental. Trick question: am I a troll or not?

grannyg00se 17y ago

If I think your beliefs are crazy, and I make fun of them, why should you be offended? If you're comfortable with yourself, you should be unaffected by my ignorance and in fact pity my lack of faith and doomed afterlife. Calling for my murder just makes you seem even crazier, and paints your beliefs as some fragile notion that must extinguish non-believers in order to exist. Of course, this is typical behaviour of many of the deeply religious. Murder in the name of religion is nothing new. We're seeing it more from the Muslims than the Christians in this century but the end result is still death in the name of religion. This isn't about freedom of speech. It's about insecure people who need to cling to fairy tales in order to get through life. It's pathetic. I pity them and their unhealthy need to believe in a fairy tale epilogue to their lives.