4 ms·

Likely directly related to this: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/notre-dame-hoaxes https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/notre

Likely directly related to this: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/notre-dame-hoaxes https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/notre-da... IE: Tons of online trolls trying to stir up false racist and xenophobic outrage on social media for this event, thus the YouTube algos picked up on some of this and linked the associated article.

DoctorOetker 8y ago
that sounds like a very poor explanation unless google relies on xenophobic outlets for ground truth...
- mirimir 8y ago
  Huh? Google would be trying to suppress xenophobic stuff, and accidentally caught actual reporting.
mirimir 8y ago
That did occur to me, as a possibility. But I can't -- really can't -- imagine how any Islamic fundamentalist group could claim responsibility for this. What would be the point? So if anyone does claim responsibility, it's ~100% sure that they're just trying to incite Islamophobia. Edit: OK, not ~100% sure. But it's either that, or they're crazy. And yes, I suppose that it's arguable that all terrorists are crazy. I still maintain that it's an obvious possibility, however. Not at all likely, but still obvious.
- sisu2019 8y ago
  I am not saying islamists did this thing but are you really saying that it doesn't make sense for them to destroy places of worship of other relgions? In Indonesia and other places they sure think differently.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Maybe I'm deluding myself, but Notre Dame just seems so much more than a "place of worship". But then, the Taliban did destroy monumental statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. Which were about twice as old as Notre Dame. So maybe I am deluding myself :(
    - sisu2019 8y ago
      it's a well-known christian cathedral. It's a pretty big deal, sure. It's a big church so it's a place of worship. What else is it?
      - mirimir 8y ago
        It's beautiful. A marvel of engineering. Such a major, iconic part of Paris. It's survived so many wars. The Nazis could have destroyed it, as they destroyed the Winter Palace outside Leningrad. And as the Allies destroyed so many cathedrals in Germany. But it survived. And to be burned out by some idiot with an agenda would be so sad and pointless. Indeed, whatever cause the idiot was supporting. But of course, it'd also be sad if it was totally an "accident". An electrical fire. Someone who left a heater running. Or didn't fully extinguish a cigarette. Anyway, I'd be very suspicious if someone claimed responsibility. If for no other reason, because if it had been a terrorist attack, we would know by now. A key point in terrorist attacks is having them be obvious. Not looking like accidents.
    - muckrakerz 8y ago
      Why would this be shocking given the recent attacks on churches and a beheading that happened in one a few years ago?
      - mirimir 8y ago
        They're all shocking. And OK, I take it back. Nothing is "too shocking" to be all that unlikely. But still, wouldn't you think that a terrorist attack on Notre Dame would involve something more like a hijacked gasoline tanker than a fire that perhaps started in the attic?

DoctorOetker 8y ago

that sounds like a very poor explanation unless google relies on xenophobic outlets for ground truth...

mirimir 8y ago
Huh? Google would be trying to suppress xenophobic stuff, and accidentally caught actual reporting.

mirimir 8y ago

That did occur to me, as a possibility. But I can't -- really can't -- imagine how any Islamic fundamentalist group could claim responsibility for this. What would be the point? So if anyone does claim responsibility, it's ~100% sure that they're just trying to incite Islamophobia. Edit: OK, not ~100% sure. But it's either that, or they're crazy. And yes, I suppose that it's arguable that all terrorists are crazy. I still maintain that it's an obvious possibility, however. Not at all likely, but still obvious.

sisu2019 8y ago
I am not saying islamists did this thing but are you really saying that it doesn't make sense for them to destroy places of worship of other relgions? In Indonesia and other places they sure think differently.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Maybe I'm deluding myself, but Notre Dame just seems so much more than a "place of worship". But then, the Taliban did destroy monumental statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. Which were about twice as old as Notre Dame. So maybe I am deluding myself :(
  - sisu2019 8y ago
    it's a well-known christian cathedral. It's a pretty big deal, sure. It's a big church so it's a place of worship. What else is it?
    - mirimir 8y ago
      It's beautiful. A marvel of engineering. Such a major, iconic part of Paris. It's survived so many wars. The Nazis could have destroyed it, as they destroyed the Winter Palace outside Leningrad. And as the Allies destroyed so many cathedrals in Germany. But it survived. And to be burned out by some idiot with an agenda would be so sad and pointless. Indeed, whatever cause the idiot was supporting. But of course, it'd also be sad if it was totally an "accident". An electrical fire. Someone who left a heater running. Or didn't fully extinguish a cigarette. Anyway, I'd be very suspicious if someone claimed responsibility. If for no other reason, because if it had been a terrorist attack, we would know by now. A key point in terrorist attacks is having them be obvious. Not looking like accidents.
  - muckrakerz 8y ago
    Why would this be shocking given the recent attacks on churches and a beheading that happened in one a few years ago?
    - mirimir 8y ago
      They're all shocking. And OK, I take it back. Nothing is "too shocking" to be all that unlikely. But still, wouldn't you think that a terrorist attack on Notre Dame would involve something more like a hijacked gasoline tanker than a fire that perhaps started in the attic?