Shooting in Paris

[sikax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102316759

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/ ... Y120150107

http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/0 ... ebdo/?_r=0

http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world ... 35762.html

http://bangkokpost.com/news/world/45504 ... s-on-alert

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 ... azine.html


Yikes. And they got away.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Ugh, that's terrible.

[Islandmur]

Truly horrible story I've been following it all day.

[Ptolemy_Banana]

Terrorist attacks come and go but there's something about this that's really got to me. This is a direct attack on free speech. It's an attempt to silence those who make it their business to ridicule the ridiculous. What's worse is the likely beneficiaries of reaction to this event will be the far right in France and across Europe. The men who murdered these journalists are representatives of a radical conservative movement, and those who are now screaming most vehemently for the annihilation of their way of life are just the other side of that coin.

[Derived Absurdity]

^ This comment is gross. First of all, this is not a direct attack on free speech, this is a direct attack on hate speech, bordering on racist propaganda.

The discrimination and oppression Muslims face in countries like France is intense. Their unemployment rate in France specifically is five percent higher than the general population, first of all. They make up at least sixty percent of the prison population there despite being only twelve percent of the population as a whole, second of all. And with the wave of Islamic immigration into Europe many Muslims realize that they are facing a huge backlash and that many white Europeans are starting to see them as nothing more than a problem that somehow needs to be solved. And not to mention the somewhat relevant fact that Arab Muslims have been the primary target of the endless imperial wars conducted by Western powers - with no small amount of participation from France - that have taken place in a continuous stream for at least the last century, and you might start to see some disturbing political and social context behind the "free speech" this magazine routinely engages in. No one should defend inflammatory rhetoric against a group which is already high disenfranchised and oppressed on inane "free speech" grounds, as if society should condone this type of thing.

I have absolutely no problem with suppressing "free speech" if it means protecting marginalized groups. If "free speech" can be used to defend the oppression of marginalized groups than it becomes absolutely nothing more than a weaponized tool used by the dominant classes of a society against the lower classes. Did you know that France has laws against Holocaust denial? I fully support that, and in the exact same vein I fully support outlawing stupid imperialist shit like this.

[Boomer]

Freedom of speech should extend to everything, even things you don't like. I don't like hearing Holocaust deniers spit their vitriol, but I'd rather live in a society where they are allowed to voice their opinions.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

What Taboo and Boomer said.

[Derived Absurdity]

Inane, power-serving nonsense. I'd rather live in a society that was actually civilized and which protects marginalized groups instead of attacks them.

[Boomer]

So you're saying freedom of speech that extends to all speech and "civilized societies" are mutually exclusive?

[LSK]

What I think he's saying is:

"[Insult your position. Follow up by describing my position by its most desirable elements, implying that you and your vision of society are opposed to these elements.]"

You know, like an ideologue.

[Derived Absurdity]

Yes, if both societies have unequal distributions of power between classes of people. This should be self-evident.

[Derived Absurdity]

What I think he's saying is:

"[Insult your position. Follow up by describing my position by its most desirable elements, implying that you and your vision of society are opposed to these elements.]"

You know, like an ideologue.

If you want to specifically lay out your problems with my position I'll be happy to engage with them.

[LSK]

I actually think your position in the larger post above (posts really should have numbers...) is an interesting one. And you're surely right that the systematic disadvantage that Arab Muslims face in France is a very relevant factor (not, of course, the only factor though) in explaining why attacks like these occur. But I don't think that any of that information is useful for deciding the free speech question, since I consider the "sacredness" (forgive me) of free speech to be axiomatically true. Where "free speech" lies in the importance of the political organization of society, in other words, is not contingent on other factors.

[sikax]

Yeah, I can't get behind Derived in the sense that speech should not be totally free. That's fine. But that doesn't mean someone doesn't also have the right to get super pissed about it. Murder? No, still not condoning it, but perhaps murder is just a degree of anger that those people felt could be reached when most of us don't.

Consider the anti-Japanese, -German, and -Soviet political cartoons the United States has published over the last century. Horrible, racist in every way. Political war-time satire, sure, but still horrible and racist. Would it really surprise anyone if a Japanese guy, walking around his hometown in California suddenly sees in a store window a cartoon like that, and he gets angry about it?

[Derived Absurdity]

since I consider the "sacredness" (forgive me) of free speech to be axiomatically true.

Well, I simply don't. I guess that's a fundamental difference of values which will impede an agreement between us on this. Not only do I think restricting the freedom of speech of certain groups to say certain things is not inherently a bad idea, I think in many cases it's a very good idea.

[LSK]

Would it really surprise anyone if a Japanese guy, walking around his hometown in California suddenly sees in a store window a cartoon like that, and he gets angry about it?

No, this wouldn't be surprising. He's entitled to his anger. If he subsequently went and murdered the publishers of that cartoon, he'd be entitled to our scorn and our criminal justice system and our disdain for the very notion that "insult" or "offense" are good reasons for murder.

[Pope Bucky]

No one has the right to not be offended. No one has the right to expect no one to be offended by what they say.

[Boomer]

since I consider the "sacredness" (forgive me) of free speech to be axiomatically true.

Well, I simply don't. I guess that's a fundamental difference of values which will impede an agreement between us on this. Not only do I think restricting the freedom of speech of certain groups to say certain things is not inherently a bad idea, I think in many cases it's a very good idea.

Who decides what gets restricted and what doesn't? Does the government just pick and choose or is it up to a majority vote in a country?

If I legitimately thought supporting abortion was hate speech and the majority of my country agreed should talk of abortion be banned?

It could be argued that most of the world's problems are rooted in religion, perhaps if we banned or restricted any religious talk there would be less hate, and we could be free to enjoy a "civil society"?

[Dr_Liszt]

I don't know how freedom of speech works in your countries. I don't think it's this like solid limited thing with no boundaries because in my experience, we all are more free to express certain things than others. We are more likely to be silenced saying certain things than others. To imply we all enjoy this, even in the west, is in my opinion, naive.

So from what I understand, if went to the U.S and made this horrible racist cartoon of a Jewish person or a Black person, there would be an extreme backlash against me. Especially since they come from oppressed groups with a history of slavery. But when it comes to Muslims it's more accepted? How is one hate speech and the other satire?

Obviously I do believe both are hate speech, and what Charlie Hebdo did was hate speech. But I don't understand how people are more willing to condemn one and laugh at the other when it's practically the same thing.

I agree with Derived that in many cases freedom of speech is used as a tool of silencing.

[Cassius Clay]

Would it really surprise anyone if a Japanese guy, walking around his hometown in California suddenly sees in a store window a cartoon like that, and he gets angry about it?

No, this wouldn't be surprising. He's entitled to his anger. If he subsequently went and murdered the publishers of that cartoon, he'd be entitled to our scorn and our criminal justice system and our disdain for the very notion that "insult" or "offense" are good reasons for murder.

Yes. But, then, pointing out how hateful and downright violent the cartoon was is not "victim-blaming". That is a derailing tactic to shut down conversation. About the harmful, abusive dynamics they reflect and reinforce.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

By suppressing racists, bigots, and other such people rights to their opinion it would only encourage a "victim" mentality. It would encourage a whole lot more passive aggression from these types of people. And these groups are typically supported by some pretty wealthy people so they'd have the tools to flood society with passive aggressive suggestive propaganda.

If you suppress these people's freedom of speech because you are afraid they will use it as a tool of silencing then you are effective restricting the right of freedom of speech to all those that would fight against hate mentalities.

To put it bluntly, I most definitely prefer to know who the bigots/racists are rather than forcing them to hide their awful views. Known thine enemy.

[sikax]

But when it comes to Muslims it's more accepted? How is one hate speech and the other satire?

Obviously I do believe both are hate speech, and what Charlie Hebdo did was hate speech. But I don't understand how people are more willing to condemn one and laugh at the other when it's practically the same thing.

This. All this.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Did the content of the cartoons contribute to the death of the cartoonists?

[Derived Absurdity]

since I consider the "sacredness" (forgive me) of free speech to be axiomatically true.

Well, I simply don't. I guess that's a fundamental difference of values which will impede an agreement between us on this. Not only do I think restricting the freedom of speech of certain groups to say certain things is not inherently a bad idea, I think in many cases it's a very good idea.

Who decides what gets restricted and what doesn't? Does the government just pick and choose or is it up to a majority vote in a country?

If I legitimately thought supporting abortion was hate speech and the majority of my country agreed should talk of abortion be banned?

It could be argued that most of the world's problems are rooted in religion, perhaps if we banned or restricted any religious talk there would be less hate, and we could be free to enjoy a "civil society"?

That's my point. The government by definition is made of the powerful and thus its decisions would tend to serve the powerful, including its restrictions on the concept of free speech.

This seems to be mostly inevitable, so from my perspective the most we could do is lessen its damaging effects.

One example of restrictions on free speech being put to excellent use was during the Nuremberg trials when Julius Streicher, publisher of the virulently anti-Semitic Der Stürmer newspaper, was judged an accessory to mass murder and hanged. This is evidence that governments can sometimes make sound decisions about free speech restrictions.

A good heuristic would be restrictions on any speech which dehumanizes or discriminates against the least powerful elements in society. Unfortunately governments only seem able to uphold this rule when the governments in question happen to be their enemies. And as it happens the least powerful elements in society often happen to be the very elements the government happens to be targeting, which is why we'll never see any restrictions on promoting or celebrating imperialism and militarism. So that will never work in practice.

Maybe the best option is to have the vanguards of free speech be not in the hands of government or majority vote but civil liberties groups and other advocacy groups. But we're probably fucked no matter which option is chosen.

[LSK]

Would it really surprise anyone if a Japanese guy, walking around his hometown in California suddenly sees in a store window a cartoon like that, and he gets angry about it?

No, this wouldn't be surprising. He's entitled to his anger. If he subsequently went and murdered the publishers of that cartoon, he'd be entitled to our scorn and our criminal justice system and our disdain for the very notion that "insult" or "offense" are good reasons for murder.

Yes. But, then, pointing out how hateful and downright violent the cartoon was is not "victim-blaming". That is a derailing tactic to shut down conversation. About the harmful, abusive dynamics they reflect and reinforce.

It might not be victim blaming. You've made valuable points about that, and I'm digesting them. But that doesn't mean calling it victim-blaming is an attempt to shut down the conversation. If it were, then I wouldn't still be discussing the topic, would I? I would've just left it at victim blaming and gone on to something else more productive.

It must surely strike you as unusually convenient that calling your attitude "victim blaming" in this context is a "derailing tactic"—but in other contexts, where you are calling someone else's attitude "victim blaming," it's certainly not a "derailing tactic," no matter how much the other person might insist it is.

[Dr_Liszt]

That's my point. The government by definition is made of the powerful and thus its decisions would tend to serve the powerful, including its restrictions on the concept of free speech.

This seems to be mostly inevitable, so from my perspective the most we could do is lessen its damaging effects.

One example of restrictions on free speech being put to excellent use was during the Nuremberg trials when Julius Streicher, publisher of the virulently anti-Semitic Der Stürmer newspaper, was judged an accessory to mass murder and hanged. This is evidence that governments can sometimes make sound decisions about free speech restrictions.

A good heuristic would be restrictions on any speech which dehumanizes or discriminates against the least powerful elements in society. Unfortunately governments only seem able to uphold this rule when the governments in question happen to be their enemies. And as it happens the least powerful elements in society often happen to be the very elements the government happens to be targeting, which is why we'll never see any restrictions on promoting or celebrating imperialism and militarism. So that will never work in practice.

Maybe the best option is to have the vanguards of free speech be not in the hands of government or majority vote but civil liberties groups and other advocacy groups. But we're probably fucked no matter which option is chosen.

I do agree with anarchists on this one, as long as governments exist, oppression is inevitable.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I don't think it's all that complex as to the reasons behind why one is found to be funny and the other is not even though they are similar situations.
Blacks and Jews are not going around blowing up buildings and killing thousands of people. Fanatic Muslims are.

And that is why one is found funny and the other is not. If blacks were flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people then you could bet your left boob there'd be the same mentality from society as is currently with Muslims.

And do you know why that is? Because Muslims jeopardize the very foundation on which the United Corporations of America is built on. And so those corporations throw millions of dollars into tools that encourage society to view Muslims as the enemy instead of who the real enemy is. Blacks nor Jews nor any other minority come even close to the threat level against corporations that Muslims do.

[sikax]

And do you know why that is? Because Muslims jeopardize the very foundation on which the United Corporations of America is built on. And so those corporations throw millions of dollars into tools that encourage society to view Muslims as the enemy instead of who the real enemy is. Blacks nor Jews nor any other minority come even close to the threat level against corporations that Muslims do

Wait what

[Derived Absurdity]

I don't think it's all that complex as to the reasons behind why one is found to be funny and the other is not even though they are similar situations.
Blacks and Jews are not going around blowing up buildings and killing thousands of people. Fanatic Muslims are.

And that is why one is found funny and the other is not. If blacks were flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people then you could bet your left boob there'd be the same mentality from society as is currently with Muslims.

And do you know why that is? Because Muslims jeopardize the very foundation on which the United Corporations of America is built on. And so those corporations throw millions of dollars into tools that encourage society to view Muslims as the enemy instead of who the real enemy is. Blacks nor Jews nor any other minority come even close to the threat level against corporations that Muslims do.

I don't get it.

[Cassius Clay]

But that doesn't mean calling it victim-blaming is an attempt to shut down the conversation. If it were, then I wouldn't still be discussing the topic, would I? I would've just left it at victim blaming and gone on to something else more productive.

Umm..see..that is why I called it an attempt. One that I am challenging by pointing out. There are many other conversations being had, or needed to be had, which WILL be shut down when someone says VICTIM-BLAMING.

It must surely strike you as unusually convenient that calling your attitude "victim blaming" in this context is a "derailing tactic"—but in other contexts, where you are calling someone else's attitude "victim blaming," it's certainly not a "derailing tactic," no matter how much the other person might insist it is.

Not really.

[Cassius Clay]

I don't think it's all that complex as to the reasons behind why one is found to be funny and the other is not even though they are similar situations.
Blacks and Jews are not going around blowing up buildings and killing thousands of people. Fanatic Muslims are.

And that is why one is found funny and the other is not. If blacks were flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people then you could bet your left boob there'd be the same mentality from society as is currently with Muslims.

And do you know why that is? Because Muslims jeopardize the very foundation on which the United Corporations of America is built on. And so those corporations throw millions of dollars into tools that encourage society to view Muslims as the enemy instead of who the real enemy is. Blacks nor Jews nor any other minority come even close to the threat level against corporations that Muslims do.

See, this is why I was already bring up the importance of distinguishing between root cause of racism/oppression and justifications.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

What don't you get DA?

Sikax, what I mean is that extreme religious groups in the Middle east are a direct threat to the profits of western countries. Muslims resent the US and other countries oppressive foreign policy which directly affects their quality of life and so they retaliate. This retaliation can affect profitability of our grand corporations and so those corporations employ a whole lot of nasty policy which effectively hides their true motives. Dehumanize Muslims, all not just extremists and presto! Big Corps built a wall made up of western society to protect their "interests" in the Middle East.

[Cassius Clay]

I think it originally came across as you justifying why one was funny, not merely explaining why it's allowed because Muslims are a threat to Imperialist/Corp interests. I think I get what you're saying.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Oi Vey! I definitely was not trying to justify why one was funny and one was not. I thought my "United Corporations of America" and "who the real enemy is" comments would indicate my motivations behind the post.

[Dr_Liszt]

Oi Vey! I definitely was not trying to justify why one was funny and one was not. I thought my "United Corporations of America" and "who the real enemy is" comments would indicate my motivations behind the post.

I did understood it, the beginning of the post did sound like a justification but by the end it was clear it was not. But it was still confusing!

[Derived Absurdity]

I was confused because the last paragraph seemed to be entirely disconnected from the previous ones. In the first few you seemed to be justifying caricaturing Muslims because they just go around blowing up buildings and in the last you seemed to be saying the exact opposite, even though you were framing it as a continuation of the same point.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Ok I see what you guys are saying. Sorry for the mud.

[Boomer]

"One example of restrictions on free speech being put to excellent use was during the Nuremberg trials when Julius Streicher, publisher of the virulently anti-Semitic Der Stürmer newspaper, was judged an accessory to mass murder and hanged. This is evidence that governments can sometimes make sound decisions about free speech restrictions"

Really? I think it's the exact opposite. Streicher was a cog in the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany and represented the government-controlled media. You can't argue this as an example of freedom of speech being restricted when his voice was the only one legally allowed to be heard, a voice that fervently supported the government and made it wrong to question Hitler's Reich.

If anything this is an example showing governments should stay as far away from dictating free speech as possible.

[Derived Absurdity]

http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpen ... rists.html

This article makes the point that the terrorists may not have been motivated by attacking free speech or being offended by the drawings per se, but instead by a hope that the attack would provoke an overreaction and intensify the persecution of Muslims already occurring and thereby help them recruit and radicalize new members.

[LSK]

http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpen ... rists.html

This article makes the point that the terrorists may not have been motivated by attacking free speech or being offended by the drawings per se, but instead by a hope that the attack would provoke an overreaction and intensify the persecution of Muslims already occurring and thereby help them recruit and radicalize new members.

That definitely seems plausible to me—fanning the flames of civil conflict.

[Gendo]

I don't think it's all that complex as to the reasons behind why one is found to be funny and the other is not even though they are similar situations.
Blacks and Jews are not going around blowing up buildings and killing thousands of people. Fanatic Muslims are.

And that is why one is found funny and the other is not. If blacks were flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people then you could bet your left boob there'd be the same mentality from society as is currently with Muslims.

And do you know why that is? Because Muslims jeopardize the very foundation on which the United Corporations of America is built on. And so those corporations throw millions of dollars into tools that encourage society to view Muslims as the enemy instead of who the real enemy is. Blacks nor Jews nor any other minority come even close to the threat level against corporations that Muslims do.

OOOH... Ok, I had to read this 3 times before I got what you were saying. I seriously though you were actually spewing bigoted anti-Muslim stuff; and I was really quite surprised at you. Partially because I missed the "Corporations" instead of "States" bit, and partially because the internet sucks at giving off tone.

[Ptolemy_Banana]

^ This comment is gross. First of all, this is not a direct attack on free speech, this is a direct attack on hate speech, bordering on racist propaganda.

Oh, well that's alright then. Murder away, murderers. Just make sure to murder the right cartoonists!

You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

[sikax]

Certainly plausible.

Someone more inclined toward conspiracy theories than myself might also suggest that it was staged by the government as a means of justifying intensified hatred toward and oppression of Muslims.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

That could be very true in this case and that is why I think there would be no benefit to discuss the murders and motives. Any discussion like that would merely incite anger and feelings of retribution which either way you look at it, benefits the radical Muslims AND Big Corps. Radicals will use the backlash against Muslims as a means to recruit more members and Big Corps will use the murders as a means to reinforce Muslim prejudice which ensures their interests are protected in the Middle East.

I think we need to separate the two issues from each other in order to avoid the above. The specific case should be condemned as no one deserves to die for speaking their opinion and leave it at that. A separate discussion should be had in regards to foreign policy and how it affects the members of certain countries. We can show the truth behind the policies and how we are lied to time and time again by our governments and how they hide their true motivations. We do not need to mention this shooting at all. There's just no benefit to it. Focus on the root of the evil and only that.

There are few incidents in which violence as retaliation resulted in change. Violence typically results in the exact opposite. People shore up their beliefs and strap their helmets on tighter for the fight ahead.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I just realized that last sentence is kind of out of place. Sorry. Just something that popped into my head as I was finishing up my other thought.

[Derived Absurdity]

^ This comment is gross. First of all, this is not a direct attack on free speech, this is a direct attack on hate speech, bordering on racist propaganda.

Oh, well that's alright then. Murder away, murderers. Just make sure to murder the right cartoonists!

You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

Lol, I was wondering when I would be accused of justifying murder. I expected it to happen a lot sooner, I was getting impatient.

Certainly plausible.

Someone more inclined toward conspiracy theories than myself might also suggest that it was staged by the government as a means of justifying intensified hatred toward and oppression of Muslims.

It might not be very probable, but it's certainly a possibility.

[sikax]

There are few incidents in which violence as retaliation resulted in change. Violence typically results in the exact opposite. People shore up their beliefs and strap their helmets on tighter for the fight ahead.

Too true. But then, how do we dissolve prejudices and change people in a positive way? Violence doesn't help, reasoning with people so ingrained with racism doesn't work...what are we supposed to do? Sometimes you just want to hit something, knowing full well it won't change anything, just to let out aggression; it just feels good at the moment. I know when I get upset enough to want to punch something, I punch a pillow or a tree, ya know, to let out that moment of anger. But when you have something on the scale of widespread and longstanding oppression and hate and piss someone off A LOT and ALL THE TIME, there isn't a metaphorical equivalent to a pillow that they can punch. They go for the obvious target.

I wonder, and this is a serious question for everyone, if the Hebdo office was empty and these men bombed it, destroying it, but not harming anyone, would your analysis of the situation change?

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Education of the future of western countries. We've seen it work! Look at religion. With the advent of the internet all of a sudden young people (and not so young) had access to all the information they could ever need. With the evidence being available to everyone now, it became much harder for faith leaders to promote their religion and encourage people to join. New Member stats are down considerably.

The same is being done for so many other issues out there. Racism, sexism, bigotry etc...you give our kids access to everything they need to formulate an opinion, most likely they will be inclined to favor logical arguments that have the evidence and support to back them up especially since public education is fond of teaching kids thinking skills. Eradication of widespread prejudice will not happen over night but we can most certainly start the ball rolling in that direction.

Basically, get'em while they're young. Older generations can be more conditioned to their beliefs hence harder to convince of the truth but it's not impossible. Beliefs have been changed before. Dr. Gupta for example was against pot vehemently as a matter of fact. His colleagues poured mountains of information onto him and slowly but surely he started to feel differently. And he's a well respected Doctor by society and the medical field. We need to find people like him that are known in wide circles that seem more open to suggestion and have at them. It can work. We have evidence it can work. Let's not fall into a hopelessness mentality and let's not be silent to violence even if the root of the action is based on terrible injustices.

As for your last question...blowing up a building is violent and risks injury and death even if no one is in the building as one can never be 100% sure of the how widespread the blast would be. I would condemn such an action as I would with murdering the cartoonists.

[Gendo]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... acist.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
^^ This. This is what I was trying to say yesterday.