5 ms·

I wonder if the debate in the media will focus on religious fanaticism or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being

by robteix 12y ago

I wonder if the debate in the media will focus on religious fanaticism or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative.

petercooper 12y ago
The FT already started with the latter: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/01/07/financial-times-declares-charlie-hebdo-stupid-for-editorial-foolishness/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/01/07/financial...
- mercer 12y ago
  > Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech How is explicitly challenging those who oppose free speech not the best way to be a 'champion of the principle of free speech'?
- mercurial 12y ago
  Ridiculous, cowardly, and wrong. Charlie Hebdo is left-wing, and is fairly even handed when it comes to mockery.
  - daeken 12y ago
    Even if they weren't even-handed, it wouldn't change a thing. They could be publishing a newspaper named "Fuck Muhammad" and it'd still be equally wrong for them to have been attacked in this way. I'm not entirely sure why we coddle religious fanatics as we do, but it needs to stop for us to progress as a society.
    - mercurial 12y ago
      Oh, I agree, it's just that the impression the FT tries to give ("Charlie Hebdo, the newspaper specialized in Muslim-baiting") is wrong. Hopefully nobody reading this thinks it's entirely reasonable to shoot people for a drawing.
      - mieses 12y ago
        But they are supposed to be free to practice their religion, which means shooting people for a drawing. Maybe religious freedom should not extend to psychopathic ideologies just as freedom to bear arms does not extend to personal nuclear weapons.
        mercurial 12y ago
        Freedom of religion does not extend to shooting people in the name of it in any western country. What are you talking about?
        mieses 12y ago
        Wasn't the act of shooting a religious practice? You may choose to rationalize a separation of religion from its inevitable outcomes. They don't. Edit: You also twisted my statement. I asked whether the freedom should extend to the ideology. You twisted it around and stated that the freedom does not extend to shooting people. You're hiding from the issue.
        mercurial 12y ago
        I'm not so much hiding from the issue as (apparently) failing to understand what point you are trying to make. Regarding "shooting as a religious practice", well, not in the sense I understand "religious practice", that is, a regular ritual. If you're talking about "religious reasons", sure. Much in the same way that plenty of people have died for political reasons due to the actions of fringe movements, which in a democracy is not ground enough to ban the more mainstream version of these groups (eg, the actions of the banned left-wing Action Directe in France did not lead to the dissolution of the Communist Party).
      - mieses 12y ago
        I think we agree that the killing is not a good outcome. Going back to your initial statement that "hopefully nobody reading this thinks it's entirely reasonable to shoot people for a drawing", my point is that hopefully nobody reading this thinks Islam is compatible with reason. "Religious practice" is not limited to ritual. Good deeds, helping the elderly, being honest, not stealing, the 10 commandments, sacrificing the goat, killing the cartoonist, etc are all part of religious practice. "Religious reasoning" exists in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The killing in this case is not justified through interpretation, rationalization, or reasoning. It is commanded by the final, uncorrupted word of God.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      We don't coddle religious fanatics, we coddle the moderate masses. As soon as extremists get involved things change. These murders have caused many people who were against publishing Mohammed cartoons to change their stance.
- tomp 12y ago
  The Telegraph takes the opposite stance: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11330479/We-must-stop-blaming-ourselves-for-Islamist-terror.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1133... > "We must stop blaming ourselves for Islamist terror" > It is tempting to think the Islamic fanaticism is purely a reaction to the West, but jihadists kill because that is what they do > [...] Provocation is merely an excuse used by bullies to justify their actions, [...]
yodsanklai 12y ago
> or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative. Not going to happen. French people value satire and freedom of expression.
- jayess 12y ago
  Really? http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/11/mish-fined-8000-euros-for-quoting_20.html http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/11/mish-fine...
  - francoisfeugeas 12y ago
    Your link is so much more relevant than the thousands of people taking the streets brandishing "Je suis Charlie" signs when the terrorists are still at large. /s Sorry, I meant : yes, really.
- serve_yay 12y ago
  Yeah, if you look like they do. If you want to express yourself with a scarf on your head, oops, sorry that's the wrong kind of freedom.
venomsnake 12y ago
Victim blaming in the elites and surging ranks of the right because none of the big players will want to engage with the difficult questions.
blfr 12y ago
Religious fanaticism? Were the attackers Buddhists? Shintoists? Jews?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Kiro 12y ago
  Can muslims not be religious fanatics or what do you mean? Sorry if I missed something obvious with your comment.
  - mrtron 12y ago
    I think that he is implying they are "muslim fanatics" not "religious fanatics". This is an important distinction if you are religious but want to pretend to yourself extremism only happens with muslims.
    - blfr 12y ago
      Right. Or if you're non-religious but also not a communist. More importantly, the condemnation of "extremism" misses the point. No one's worried about Catholic monks. Yet they're some of the most extreme religious extremists around. Buddhist monks even more so. Why speak like a politician when you're not one?
  - randallsquared 12y ago
    I believe he's asking that we not tar all religious people with this brush. But, then, exactly the same argument applies to muslims in general.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    He means it was "islamic fanaticism", so it's islams fault, and those other types are not fanatics... On the other hand the Sintoist Japanese did horrible attrocities in China and Korea back in the day, Israeli Jews can also be genocidal against Palestinians etc. And Christianity has had its share of crime, starting with the Crusades. Budhists might be better, dunno.
Shivetya 12y ago
Well you can look at it based on how each news source labeled it, some stated terrorist, some stated attackers, some called it out for they religion they are, Islamic. Far too many people fear to name it for what it is.
Torgo 12y ago
Sally Kohn of CNN: "It is not inconsistent to believe in free speech AND be against insulting other people’s faith traditions. #CharlieHedbo" Totally disregarding that machine-gunning to death 11 people because you're offended, which is what just happened, is a gross violation of free speech in addition to being a human tragedy. By bringing this up right now, how could this be interpreted any other way than believing these tragedies wouldn't happen if those people weren't so darn disrespectful of Muslims.
- mercer 12y ago
  I agree with that statement in isolation, but in context it does seem misplaced.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  Sally Kohn is actually right in what you quoted, even if not in where you think she's going with it. I believe in free speech, including the right to insult other people's faith traditions. (Other people feel free to insult my faith traditions, and do so on a semi-regular basis. I respond with speech, not with bullets or bombs.) On the other hand, basic politeness means that I do not consider insulting other people's faith traditions to be a virtue. What's more, we live in a world where violent extremists exist. That's reality. They shouldn't exist, but this is not an ideal world. They're out there. When you choose to deliberately insult the cherished beliefs of violent extremists, in the real world you have to know that you are likely to cause some consequences. (Let me be very clear here. The violent extremists are morally responsible for the violent reaction. But when you push their buttons, you have to know that their buttons are hot-wired to their trigger fingers.) Now, you may conclude that it's worth it to demonstrate that these people really are violent extremists. That's your choice. I'm not saying that you're wrong. But you'd better think it through before you do it, because the way the world actually works, you may receive some consequences.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    The people that died today were a warriors. In a war that I am not sure you even realize is waging. The war for the freedom of the human mind. Humor, satire, mockery - they all help society to see through haze. Because nothing should be sacrosanct. The moment we say that even a single thing is ... then everything that suits the powers that be will be.
serve_yay 12y ago
The #KillAllMuslims contingent is out if you care to have a look at that. https://twitter.com/roqchams/status/552833198036484098 https://twitter.com/roqchams/status/552833198036484098
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  Great. Violent nut jobs on both sides now. Not that I'm surprised...
  - serve_yay 12y ago
    Now?
gohrt 12y ago
I wonder if HN commentors will start concern trolling.

by robteix 12y ago

I wonder if the debate in the media will focus on religious fanaticism or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative.

petercooper 12y ago

The FT already started with the latter: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/01/07/financial-times-declares-charlie-hebdo-stupid-for-editorial-foolishness/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/01/07/financial...

mercer 12y ago
> Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech How is explicitly challenging those who oppose free speech not the best way to be a 'champion of the principle of free speech'?
mercurial 12y ago
Ridiculous, cowardly, and wrong. Charlie Hebdo is left-wing, and is fairly even handed when it comes to mockery.
- daeken 12y ago
  Even if they weren't even-handed, it wouldn't change a thing. They could be publishing a newspaper named "Fuck Muhammad" and it'd still be equally wrong for them to have been attacked in this way. I'm not entirely sure why we coddle religious fanatics as we do, but it needs to stop for us to progress as a society.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Oh, I agree, it's just that the impression the FT tries to give ("Charlie Hebdo, the newspaper specialized in Muslim-baiting") is wrong. Hopefully nobody reading this thinks it's entirely reasonable to shoot people for a drawing.
    - mieses 12y ago
      But they are supposed to be free to practice their religion, which means shooting people for a drawing. Maybe religious freedom should not extend to psychopathic ideologies just as freedom to bear arms does not extend to personal nuclear weapons.
      - mercurial 12y ago
        Freedom of religion does not extend to shooting people in the name of it in any western country. What are you talking about?
      - mieses 12y ago
        Wasn't the act of shooting a religious practice? You may choose to rationalize a separation of religion from its inevitable outcomes. They don't. Edit: You also twisted my statement. I asked whether the freedom should extend to the ideology. You twisted it around and stated that the freedom does not extend to shooting people. You're hiding from the issue.
        mercurial 12y ago
        I'm not so much hiding from the issue as (apparently) failing to understand what point you are trying to make. Regarding "shooting as a religious practice", well, not in the sense I understand "religious practice", that is, a regular ritual. If you're talking about "religious reasons", sure. Much in the same way that plenty of people have died for political reasons due to the actions of fringe movements, which in a democracy is not ground enough to ban the more mainstream version of these groups (eg, the actions of the banned left-wing Action Directe in France did not lead to the dissolution of the Communist Party).
    - mieses 12y ago
      I think we agree that the killing is not a good outcome. Going back to your initial statement that "hopefully nobody reading this thinks it's entirely reasonable to shoot people for a drawing", my point is that hopefully nobody reading this thinks Islam is compatible with reason. "Religious practice" is not limited to ritual. Good deeds, helping the elderly, being honest, not stealing, the 10 commandments, sacrificing the goat, killing the cartoonist, etc are all part of religious practice. "Religious reasoning" exists in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The killing in this case is not justified through interpretation, rationalization, or reasoning. It is commanded by the final, uncorrupted word of God.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    We don't coddle religious fanatics, we coddle the moderate masses. As soon as extremists get involved things change. These murders have caused many people who were against publishing Mohammed cartoons to change their stance.
tomp 12y ago
The Telegraph takes the opposite stance: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11330479/We-must-stop-blaming-ourselves-for-Islamist-terror.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1133... > "We must stop blaming ourselves for Islamist terror" > It is tempting to think the Islamic fanaticism is purely a reaction to the West, but jihadists kill because that is what they do > [...] Provocation is merely an excuse used by bullies to justify their actions, [...]

yodsanklai 12y ago

> or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative. Not going to happen. French people value satire and freedom of expression.

jayess 12y ago
Really? http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/11/mish-fined-8000-euros-for-quoting_20.html http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/11/mish-fine...
- francoisfeugeas 12y ago
  Your link is so much more relevant than the thousands of people taking the streets brandishing "Je suis Charlie" signs when the terrorists are still at large. /s Sorry, I meant : yes, really.
serve_yay 12y ago
Yeah, if you look like they do. If you want to express yourself with a scarf on your head, oops, sorry that's the wrong kind of freedom.

venomsnake 12y ago

Victim blaming in the elites and surging ranks of the right because none of the big players will want to engage with the difficult questions.

blfr 12y ago

Religious fanaticism? Were the attackers Buddhists? Shintoists? Jews?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Kiro 12y ago
Can muslims not be religious fanatics or what do you mean? Sorry if I missed something obvious with your comment.
- mrtron 12y ago
  I think that he is implying they are "muslim fanatics" not "religious fanatics". This is an important distinction if you are religious but want to pretend to yourself extremism only happens with muslims.
  - blfr 12y ago
    Right. Or if you're non-religious but also not a communist. More importantly, the condemnation of "extremism" misses the point. No one's worried about Catholic monks. Yet they're some of the most extreme religious extremists around. Buddhist monks even more so. Why speak like a politician when you're not one?
- randallsquared 12y ago
  I believe he's asking that we not tar all religious people with this brush. But, then, exactly the same argument applies to muslims in general.
- coldtea 12y ago
  He means it was "islamic fanaticism", so it's islams fault, and those other types are not fanatics... On the other hand the Sintoist Japanese did horrible attrocities in China and Korea back in the day, Israeli Jews can also be genocidal against Palestinians etc. And Christianity has had its share of crime, starting with the Crusades. Budhists might be better, dunno.

Shivetya 12y ago

Well you can look at it based on how each news source labeled it, some stated terrorist, some stated attackers, some called it out for they religion they are, Islamic. Far too many people fear to name it for what it is.

Torgo 12y ago

Sally Kohn of CNN: "It is not inconsistent to believe in free speech AND be against insulting other people’s faith traditions. #CharlieHedbo" Totally disregarding that machine-gunning to death 11 people because you're offended, which is what just happened, is a gross violation of free speech in addition to being a human tragedy. By bringing this up right now, how could this be interpreted any other way than believing these tragedies wouldn't happen if those people weren't so darn disrespectful of Muslims.

mercer 12y ago
I agree with that statement in isolation, but in context it does seem misplaced.
AnimalMuppet 12y ago
Sally Kohn is actually right in what you quoted, even if not in where you think she's going with it. I believe in free speech, including the right to insult other people's faith traditions. (Other people feel free to insult my faith traditions, and do so on a semi-regular basis. I respond with speech, not with bullets or bombs.) On the other hand, basic politeness means that I do not consider insulting other people's faith traditions to be a virtue. What's more, we live in a world where violent extremists exist. That's reality. They shouldn't exist, but this is not an ideal world. They're out there. When you choose to deliberately insult the cherished beliefs of violent extremists, in the real world you have to know that you are likely to cause some consequences. (Let me be very clear here. The violent extremists are morally responsible for the violent reaction. But when you push their buttons, you have to know that their buttons are hot-wired to their trigger fingers.) Now, you may conclude that it's worth it to demonstrate that these people really are violent extremists. That's your choice. I'm not saying that you're wrong. But you'd better think it through before you do it, because the way the world actually works, you may receive some consequences.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  The people that died today were a warriors. In a war that I am not sure you even realize is waging. The war for the freedom of the human mind. Humor, satire, mockery - they all help society to see through haze. Because nothing should be sacrosanct. The moment we say that even a single thing is ... then everything that suits the powers that be will be.

serve_yay 12y ago

The #KillAllMuslims contingent is out if you care to have a look at that. https://twitter.com/roqchams/status/552833198036484098 https://twitter.com/roqchams/status/552833198036484098

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
Great. Violent nut jobs on both sides now. Not that I'm surprised...
- serve_yay 12y ago
  Now?

gohrt 12y ago

I wonder if HN commentors will start concern trolling.