Charlie Hebdo under terrorist attack

[The Once and Future King]

Even at the risk of angering the moderates?

This wasn't an attack by all Muslims; it was a couple of crazy Muslims warping what Islam is and using it to justify murder to themselves.

There is no fear of angering moderates. If you do they will protest. Courage is angering radicals who will attempt to kill your family. I for one accept that risk (I work in a very public field) to insure that the brave men who were murdered today live on. Long live freedom. [emoji60]

[lojzelote]

Lojzelote,

If that is directed at me my point is that serious reformation of an Abramic faith may be, inherently, a violent process. Which, frankly as a member of an Abramic faith, doesn't speak terribly well for us.

It was directed partly at Prince Alexander, partly at you. I do think you have a fair point that the present situation is at least in part the result of friction of opposing tendencies in Islam, modernization vs tradicionalism, and I am quite disquieted that by the looks of it, Europe should become its fighting field, as well as by the unwillingness of the authorities and the media to admit there is a serious problem. On our home web pages, I can daily read articles that religious (muslim, but they won't tell you that) extremism is on the rise and that according to surveys atheists are in many (muslim, but they won't tell you that either) countries considered to be 'terrorists' and that thousands of "Germans" adhere to fundamental Islamism... political correctness at its best. A look in the comment section will tell you everybody knows the main problem lies with muslims and muslim immigrants, but nearly everybody is too scared to say it publicly, lest he be called a racist or a xenophobe. I am tired of it.

[mormont]

The problem with this page, and several others, is that they are not Charlie.

The only way to be Charlie is to deliberately insult the prophet. Everything else is just cowardice, empty signalling. It takes the name of CH in vain.

Nonsense.

I can perfectly well support your right to draw or publish a Mohammed caricature without personally having to draw or publish one, just as I can support your right to swear in church without personally having to go into a church and swear. That doesn't make me a coward: there are, as I've said, perfectly valid reasons why I might not want to do that, aside from being threatened. Those reasons don't go away or stop being valid because someone else did something appalling.

The important message here is not that we support the right to publish Mohammed caricatures. It is that we support the right to free speech. Bandying words like 'cowardice' around when people do the latter rather than the former is just trying to stampede people by using emotive language, not something you'd normally approve of.

Besides, the killers are still at large, and this is still an ongoing news story. The majority of the front pages DJD linked to are guilty of nothing more than reflecting that fact.

[Impmk2]

What do you mean are all americans to blame for Iraq and Afghanistan? If you mean for the war than I would answer yes as the vast majority of the public supported the invasion. (Although it has no business being on this list)

Same goes for Germany in WW2. The vast majority of Germans supported the rise Nazis, and many historical scholars blame Germany as a whole (along with poland) for the atrocities committed in the holocaust.

I am not saying all muslims are responsible for the attack but to wash their collective hands particularly based off the misguided proof you gave is ridiculous

This only serves to reinforce his point more - the vast majority of Americans and Germans supported the respective wars. And yet you'd have to be a moron to hold someone responsible purely on the basis of nationality.

The vast majority of Muslims do not support this attack, and it's been widely condemned by western Muslims, yet people still feel the need to assign blame to the entire group.

[Impmk2]

I can daily read articles that religious (muslim, but they won't tell you that) extremism is on the rise and that according to surveys atheists are in many (muslim, but they won't tell you that either) countries considered to be 'terrorists' and that thousands of "Germans" adhere to fundamental Islamism... political correctness at its best. A look in the comment section will tell you everybody knows the main problem lies with muslims and muslim immigrants, but nearly everybody is too scared to say it publicly, lest he be called a racist or a xenophobe. I am tired of it.

You can't say racist and xenophobic things without being labelled a racist xenophobe? The horror

[Happy Ent]

I can perfectly well support your right to draw or publish a Mohammed caricature without personally having to draw or publish one, just as I can support your right to swear in church without personally having to go into a church and swear.

Sure. And by doing so you aren’t Charlie.

That doesn't make me a coward:

It doesn’t. I just makes you not Charlie.

The coward is me: I am a coward, because I don’t think I’ll publish a Muhammad cartoon. That’s why I don’t think I can refer to myself as Charlie. Charlie stood for something. I will not besmirch their name by making an easy but vapid declaration that costs me nothing.

[The Iceman of the North]

The problem with this page, and several others, is that they are not Charlie.

The only way to be Charlie is to deliberately insult the prophet. Everything else is just cowardice, empty signalling. It takes the name of CH in vain.

You're taking "Je Suis Charlie" too literally. IMO, the proper reaction would be to mock the extremists. These are extremists reacting unjustly to a provocation and deserve to be mocked. To mock Islam or the prophet is another matter and should be done if you feel that is in place, not because people are provoked by it.

[lojzelote]

You can't say racist and xenophobic things without being labelled a racist xenophobe? The horror

Racist and xenophobic things? Well, racism is based on race, not on religion. As for xenophobia, note the "phobia" part, i.e., strong, irrational fear. The question presents itself, with what has been happening around the world, is being apprehensive of Islam truly irrational?

[DJDonegal]

For some reason I'm having problems trying to quote/reply and had to go to "Other Reply Options" or whatever that button was...

But in answer to the final question posed by lojzelote:

Yes. It is.

[lojzelote]

For some reason I'm having problems trying to quote/reply and had to go to "Other Reply Options" or whatever that button was...

But in answer to the final question posed by lojzelote:

Yes. It is.

No, it isn't.

[DJDonegal]

No, it isn't.

Of course it's irrational! Just as arachnophobia is irrational when most spiders you will encounter are not dangerous.

Most Muslims are not dangerous. Therefore, Islamophobia is irrational.

If you want to be apprehensive of Muslim fundamentalists, well, that we can agree on. But this is a point I have now tried to make several times; not all Muslims are fundamentalists.

[mormont]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

There is no rational reason for you, as an individual, to be frightened of or wary of a Muslim person, since the chances of you coming to harm at their hands are so small as to be barely measurable, an order of magnitude (at least) less than your chance of being run over by a car. Is it rational to be apprehensive of motor transport? By your argument, it is.

[john]

The coward is me: I am a coward, because I don’t think I’ll publish a Muhammad cartoon. That’s why I don’t think I can refer to myself as Charlie. Charlie stood for something. I will not besmirch their name by making an easy but vapid declaration that costs me nothing.

Surely to be Charlie is to have a satirical response. Which is exactly what I've seen with the "he drew first" cartoons, extremists slitting the throats of pencils etc. A cartoon mocking or even just depicting Muhammad isn't particularly satirical and would be obviously just for provocation which seems kind of childish.

[lojzelote]

If you say so... But my personal conviction is that prevention is better than all treatments in the world.

[Adara]

If you say so... But my personal conviction is that prevention is better than all treatments in the world.

What kind of prevention?

[Happy Ent]

Surely to be Charlie is to have a satirical response. Which is exactly what I've seen with the "he drew first" cartoons, extremists slitting the throats of pencils etc. A cartoon mocking or even just depicting Muhammad isn't particularly satirical and would be obviously just for provocation which seems kind of childish.

But depicting Muhammad is exactly what this is about! The right to offend is exactly what Charlie Hebdo’s artists gave their life for!

Do you really think anybody is offended by a cartoon of terrorists running away from pens? They don’t run away from pens. They laugh at pens. Except when the pen draws the Prophet.

Yes, it’s obviously just a provocation. That’s what Charlie Hebdo, and a whole lot of other political satire, is all about! This has been effectively silenced.

Standing up for the freedom of speech without exercising it seem to be pretty useless to me. What exactly are we defending if we, grave-faced, take a brave stance for something that everybody in our in-group already agrees on, except we tell each other that of course we won’t actually go as far as using that right? It’s vapid. It’s nothing.

[Happy Ent]

Most Muslims are not dangerous. Therefore, Islamophobia is irrational.

Even you must see the weakness in this, the words themselves scream it to you. You had to switch Muslim to Islam yourself to construct your silly statement.

Is Islam dangerous? I say yes. (You disagree? Great! Let’s discuss that!) Islamophobia is valid.

Are most Muslims dangerous? Of course not. That’s a childish derailment tactic.

[Galactus]

But depicting Muhammad is exactly what this is about! The right to offend is exactly what Charlie Hebdo’s artists gave their life for!

Do you really think anybody is offended by a cartoon of terrorists running away from pens? They don’t run away from pens. They laugh at pens. Except when the pen draws the Prophet.

Yes, it’s obviously just a provocation. That’s what Charlie Hebdo, and a whole lot of other political satire, is all about! This has been effectively silenced.

Standing up for the freedom of speech without exercising it seem to be pretty useless to me. What exactly are we defending if we, grave-faced, take a brave stance for something that everybody in our in-group already agrees on, except we tell each other that of course we won’t actually go as far as using that right? It’s vapid. It’s nothing.

Uh, no. You're under no obligation to excercise freedom of speech in order to stand up for the right to it. The famous quote misattributed to Voltaire is "I hate what you say but I would die for your right to say it." not "I hate what you say, so I'll say it too."

In fact the entire point of freedom of speech is that you'll stand up precisely for speech you'd never use yourself. (otherwise you're just being self-interested)

Standing up for the freedom of speech without exercising it seem to be pretty useless to me. What exactly are we defending if we, grave-faced, take a brave stance for something that everybody in our in-group already agrees on, except we tell each other that of course we won’t actually go as far as using that right? It’s vapid. It’s nothing.

No, that's the point. That rights are valuable and valid even if I myself have no particular desire to make use of them.

Even you must see the weakness in this, the words themselves scream it to you. You had to switch Muslim to Islam yourself to construct your silly statement.

What is islam other than muslims? What is christianity other than christians or communism other than communists?

[DJDonegal]

Even you must see the weakness in this, the words themselves scream it to you. You had to switch Muslim to Islam yourself to construct your silly statement.

Is Islam dangerous? I say yes. (You disagree? Great! Let’s discuss that!) Islamophobia is valid.

Are most Muslims dangerous? Of course not. That’s a childish derailment tactic.

People are not Islamophobic in the sense that they are afraid of a book with words, or the religion itself that comes from it; they are Islamophobic because of the action they fear people will carry out in the name of Islam.

To try and assert that I have had to switch "Muslim" with "Islama" and thus rendering my point down to a "silly statement" is just you taking advantage of the limitations in language and commonly used phrases to describe what is going on.

There is, to my knowledge, no word similar to "Muslimaphobia". In fact, if you Google that word it says "did you mean Islamophobia?"

So I repeat; Islamophobia is irrational. It exists, but it's irrational.

[Happy Ent]

So I repeat; Islamophobia is irrational. It exists, but it's irrational.

Is this because

(i) all criticism of ideologies is irrational? (I could understand that argument)

(ii) Islam is not an ideology?