7 ms·

We should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to at

by nkurz 12y ago

We should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to attacks like that. I greatly appreciate your comments on this site, and worry I'm being obtuse, but I'm not sure what you feel is the "thinking that leads to attacks like this". I read Hirsi Ali as saying that we must band together and deliberately offend conservative Muslim sensibilities to protect free speech. This seems greatly at odds with many of the tenets of modern multiculturalism. Are you suggesting that we need to move away from the form of multiculturalism that grants power to the violent fundamentalist?

Crito 12y ago
Multiculturalism, modern or otherwise, is impossible if offensive speech from any one group is not tolerated by any other. (They don't have to like it, merely tolerate it. They should be free to speak out against it, but not to respond to mere words with violence.) We can't just resolve to avoid offense. We need to be able to tolerate offense. If any group in a multiculturalist society cannot do this, then we must either built up their tolerance to offense, or look back on our objectives and reevaluate if they are realistic.
boracay 12y ago
I think the idea that we can fight extremism with freedom of speech is wishful thinking. There's very clear indication that pictures as those published not only increase extremism in muslim communities, but also in far-right groups. I also think we are being a bit arrogant if we think that it's a few pictures and not global conflicts that are the main reasons for the existence of these attacks.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  So attackers that explicitly call out "offensive" materials as the reason for their attacks are simply unaware of their own motives? The calls for Rushdie to be killed was due to global conflicts, not his writings?
  - deciplex 12y ago
    They are aware of their own motives, but they are probably not aware of why they have those motives in the first place. Offensive materials drive a person to violence, but the question you should ask is "what created this type of person, who kills over a cartoon?" Note that this does not excuse the actions of the murderer. They are still responsible and still must be punished. But you can punish murderers for their crimes, and adjust your policy so that you don't create so many murderers. They are not exclusive goals.
    - MichaelGG 12y ago
      Sure, I agree! The policy of being polite, of not calling people out on inane beliefs is what generates these problems. We have failed as a civilization where someone ends up believing it's OK to kill someone for renouncing their faith, for instance.
    - mc32 12y ago
      I'm not so sure about that. What _drove_ the Spanish to drive out the Arabs from Iberia and execute those that stayed behind? What made them act like that? Or what made the Huns go and conquer half of Europe and kill about half of those and subjugate the rest? Was there something which could have prevented that had the Europeans just been different in some way?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - mc32 12y ago
    Let's keep in mind that shifts in zeitgeist can shift somewhat quickly --the rise or decline of racism, or the rise or decline of women's rights (say in Russia or China). Things can change due to how people perceive things... but at the same time I don't think anyone outside those societies are or should feel responsibility for how societies change with change in the world... It'd be like saying, yeah, Japan in the 70s - 80s was at fault for the steel workers in America feeling alienated, emasculated and crushed. No, absolutely not. We needed to adjust, not the Japanese. The world at large changes, you need to change with it.
MichaelGG 12y ago
The idea of having to worry about offending people at all costs is silly. If there was a group that murdered people for using the color purple, I'm sure tons of people and companies would proudly display people. Why should it be any different here? Why cower because someone might be offended over some arbitrary rule?
- rtpg 12y ago
  Because unlike the color purple, the Islamic community of France is an oppressed underclass. If this was a bunch of racist stereotypes of blacks, would our answer be to continue to publish racist trash? These things can offend more than just extremists. Obviously this massacre is absolutely terrible, but the content of Charlie Hebdo regarding Islam was extremely offensive, and served mainly to increase the isolation of the French Muslim community
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    Hmm, yeah, if people were executed for putting on blackface, it seems a good protest might have people putting on blackface. The point being that even if you normally wouldn't be "offensive" you would to make it clear that offending people is far less important than executing them. I also like how these cartoons are extremely offensive, as if that has any bearing on anything. Perhaps people shouldn't invent rules that makes them so offended? Like that Onion article about "no one was killed over this image".
  - aswanson 12y ago
    Please dont equate mockery of a set of beliefs with mockery and oppression of a set of people based on genetic traits. I guarantee the French Muslims have not gone through a fraction of what blacks have gone through in terms of outright physical violence and state-sanctioned oppression. If anything France, and Europe as a whole, seem more than welcoming to muslims, at least from an immigration and social safety net perspective. Belief systems from Christian to Muslim to atheism must be subject to public criticism and mockery in a free society without threat of violence. People who dont feel this way should be free to leave.

by nkurz 12y ago

Crito 12y ago

Multiculturalism, modern or otherwise, is impossible if offensive speech from any one group is not tolerated by any other. (They don't have to like it, merely tolerate it. They should be free to speak out against it, but not to respond to mere words with violence.) We can't just resolve to avoid offense. We need to be able to tolerate offense. If any group in a multiculturalist society cannot do this, then we must either built up their tolerance to offense, or look back on our objectives and reevaluate if they are realistic.

boracay 12y ago

I think the idea that we can fight extremism with freedom of speech is wishful thinking. There's very clear indication that pictures as those published not only increase extremism in muslim communities, but also in far-right groups. I also think we are being a bit arrogant if we think that it's a few pictures and not global conflicts that are the main reasons for the existence of these attacks.

MichaelGG 12y ago
So attackers that explicitly call out "offensive" materials as the reason for their attacks are simply unaware of their own motives? The calls for Rushdie to be killed was due to global conflicts, not his writings?
- deciplex 12y ago
  They are aware of their own motives, but they are probably not aware of why they have those motives in the first place. Offensive materials drive a person to violence, but the question you should ask is "what created this type of person, who kills over a cartoon?" Note that this does not excuse the actions of the murderer. They are still responsible and still must be punished. But you can punish murderers for their crimes, and adjust your policy so that you don't create so many murderers. They are not exclusive goals.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    Sure, I agree! The policy of being polite, of not calling people out on inane beliefs is what generates these problems. We have failed as a civilization where someone ends up believing it's OK to kill someone for renouncing their faith, for instance.
  - mc32 12y ago
    I'm not so sure about that. What _drove_ the Spanish to drive out the Arabs from Iberia and execute those that stayed behind? What made them act like that? Or what made the Huns go and conquer half of Europe and kill about half of those and subjugate the rest? Was there something which could have prevented that had the Europeans just been different in some way?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- mc32 12y ago
  Let's keep in mind that shifts in zeitgeist can shift somewhat quickly --the rise or decline of racism, or the rise or decline of women's rights (say in Russia or China). Things can change due to how people perceive things... but at the same time I don't think anyone outside those societies are or should feel responsibility for how societies change with change in the world... It'd be like saying, yeah, Japan in the 70s - 80s was at fault for the steel workers in America feeling alienated, emasculated and crushed. No, absolutely not. We needed to adjust, not the Japanese. The world at large changes, you need to change with it.

MichaelGG 12y ago

The idea of having to worry about offending people at all costs is silly. If there was a group that murdered people for using the color purple, I'm sure tons of people and companies would proudly display people. Why should it be any different here? Why cower because someone might be offended over some arbitrary rule?

rtpg 12y ago
Because unlike the color purple, the Islamic community of France is an oppressed underclass. If this was a bunch of racist stereotypes of blacks, would our answer be to continue to publish racist trash? These things can offend more than just extremists. Obviously this massacre is absolutely terrible, but the content of Charlie Hebdo regarding Islam was extremely offensive, and served mainly to increase the isolation of the French Muslim community
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Hmm, yeah, if people were executed for putting on blackface, it seems a good protest might have people putting on blackface. The point being that even if you normally wouldn't be "offensive" you would to make it clear that offending people is far less important than executing them. I also like how these cartoons are extremely offensive, as if that has any bearing on anything. Perhaps people shouldn't invent rules that makes them so offended? Like that Onion article about "no one was killed over this image".
- aswanson 12y ago
  Please dont equate mockery of a set of beliefs with mockery and oppression of a set of people based on genetic traits. I guarantee the French Muslims have not gone through a fraction of what blacks have gone through in terms of outright physical violence and state-sanctioned oppression. If anything France, and Europe as a whole, seem more than welcoming to muslims, at least from an immigration and social safety net perspective. Belief systems from Christian to Muslim to atheism must be subject to public criticism and mockery in a free society without threat of violence. People who dont feel this way should be free to leave.