Paris Attack

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Message
Author
User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#61 Post by nausearockpig » Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:57 pm

I'm in hospital at the moment and I heard a guy in the room next to us say "...well they make fun of the prophet, what else did they expect was going to happen? Fucken idiots."

Top bloke no doubt.

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: Paris Attack

#62 Post by creep » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:03 pm

nausearockpig wrote:I'm in hospital at the moment
i listen to a guy from australia who has a radio show and i notice that australians say "i'm in hospital" where we say "i'm in the hospital". australians also say "drink drive" and we say "drunk driving". i like that australian way better.

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#63 Post by nausearockpig » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:15 pm

creep wrote:
nausearockpig wrote:I'm in hospital at the moment
i listen to a guy from australia who has a radio show and i notice that australians say "i'm in hospital" where we say "i'm in the hospital". australians also say "drink drive" and we say "drunk driving". i like that australian way better.
I agree creep, generally, Australians are better than USAians ;)

Come over creep!

Our DUI saying comes from the phrase "drinking and driving" rather than being drunk and driving.. You can be done for drink driving and not be, or feel "drunk". Also we don't use the term DUI much at all.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#64 Post by SR » Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:39 am

denny.jpg
denny.jpg (27.63 KiB) Viewed 5679 times

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#65 Post by Hype » Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:58 am

SR wrote:
denny.jpg
It comes up a lot with vegans I know, but it seems obvious that you don't berate a grandmother for serving turkey or going to church. But if that grandmother tried to force other families to eat turkey or go to church, or to stop doing either of those things, then you can see where things get trickier.

Liberalism and stable democracy demands a certain kind of pluralistic starting point: tolerance, not acceptance. But this is only strictly necessary within the public sphere.

This is why, for example, a magazine which publishes an op-ed criticizing a religion need not offer equal time in defense of that religion (and this has actually been an issue in the last 15 years: see Maclean's in Canada) since there's nothing preventing members of any religion from starting their own magazine and defending their views.

But what we clearly cannot tolerate are public actions that are intolerant of others. Nearly all speech, by the way, can't be intolerant in the requisite sense, because it does not infringe on any freedoms of the people it may be directed toward. (The reason why some speech isn't protected is generally, rightly or wrongly, that this speech does infringe on protected freedoms, as in hate speech or speech which incites violence.)

It is patronizing and stupid to characterize all Muslims as being incapable of reacting to offense without violence, and it is equally patronizing to think you are protecting Muslims from themselves by not insulting them, especially when it's called for. And the blasphemy rules in the hadiths (not in the Quran!) are certainly worthy of ridicule.

I always tell the story of how during Islam Awareness Week in my undergrad institution, there were posters and bristol boards set up in the student centre providing information about Muslims and Islam, and this cabal of robed students was walking around telling people to take down images they deemed to be "idolatrous" or "offensive"... and I remember talking to a group of guys about how dumb that was, and it seemed that many of them agreed but were genuinely afraid.

It was only a couple years after that that a girl was murdered by her father and brother for refusing to cover her head at school, and only a few years after that when three children and their aunt were murdered by a mother, father, and one son... ostensibly for similar "offenses".

We shouldn't foist harsh realities in the face of grandmothers, but once actions are clearly in the realm of law, we ought not to bend one iota. Western civilization, for all its faults, has made great progress in the last few hundred years. We've recently let corporations destroy much equality and rights for workers... we should probably be very careful about letting all our other rights disappear too.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#66 Post by SR » Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:06 am

I don't disagree with your analogy much, nor your comments of speech. Where it does get tricky is when speech acts to incite violence. The threshold test for this a vacillating line, very hard to decipher unless a physical act commences and is cited.

As for hoisting the view in a believers face, I think tolerance would be the rule for the most part in western societies, but it is hard to watch in other societies where women are stoned, lashed, and otherwise abused for being human, behaving like a human, and partaking in a life that doesn't include accepting being essentially owned by men. I am not a cultural relativist and think these practices are barbaric, culture and tradition notwithstanding.

The irony here is Dennett is not a skull bashing atheist. He has spoken out against the militant stances of Harris, Dawkins and others.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#67 Post by Hype » Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:12 am

SR wrote:I don't disagree with your analogy much, nor your comments of speech. Where it does get tricky is when speech acts to incite violence. The threshold test for this a vacillating line, very hard to decipher unless a physical act commences and is cited.

As for hoisting the view in a believers face, I think tolerance would be the rule for the most part in western societies, but it is hard to watch in other societies where women are stoned, lashed, and otherwise abused for being human, behaving like a human, and partaking in a life that doesn't include accepting being essentially owned by men. I am not a cultural relativist and think these practices are barbaric, culture and tradition notwithstanding.

The irony here is Dennett is not a skull bashing atheist. He has spoken out against the militant stances of Harris, Dawkins and others.
Oh, no, I know. I was a Dennett fan years before he wrote Breaking the Spell, mostly because I like the view that thermostats are minimally conscious... but I was also much more into the New Atheist stuff back then, and followed it closely. I've met Dan, btw... very briefly. His non-technical work is mostly straightforward common sense, though I think he makes some odd claims about free will that don't fit with the rest of his work.

I recall an important point he raised about Breaking the Spell being that he tried over and over, on successive drafts of that book, to avoid causing offense, and time and again he found that no matter how he worded his criticisms, offense was taken (and no wonder!)

It's pretty clear that offensiveness isn't the metric by which tolerability should be measured.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#68 Post by SR » Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:15 am

Adurentibus Spina wrote: It's pretty clear that offensiveness isn't the metric by which tolerability should be measured.
Frame that. :thumb:

I am not as familiar with his work in terms of academic credibility, but it has never escaped me that his thought delivery is very approachable and based in 'common sense'.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#69 Post by Hype » Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:23 am

I don't disagree with your analogy much, nor your comments of speech. Where it does get tricky is when speech acts to incite violence. The threshold test for this a vacillating line, very hard to decipher unless a physical act commences and is cited.
This is so important... we don't know how to deal with it as a species... For example: http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ly/384452/
France's First Free-Speech Challenge After Charlie Hebdo
Provocateur and "comedian" Dieudonné could face charges after posting a controversial statement on his Facebook account.
This case is very, very, difficult... it appears Dieudonné has been convicted in the past of various legal offenses in the realm of hate speech, anti-semitism, etc. Some of it may just be straightforward libel (as in the claims about Jews...), though the "inverted nazi-salute" I neither understand nor think is clearly anti-semitic. I haven't found the content of what he actually posted... but it will be interesting to see if he does face charges of "defending terrorism" (what does that even mean?)

I just remembered the famous case of Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther". It was his first great popular work, and those Enlightenment emo teens ate it up so much that a number of them ended up committing suicide. It was such a phenomenon that Goethe himself declared that he wished he hadn't written it. But it's unclear that (great) works of fiction which seem to be causally implicated in bad things happening should be controlled, ever. We have a duty to teach children how to distinguish forms of speech in asserted from unasserted contexts. In fact, philosophy lecturers have been accused of hate speech in intro logic classes because they MENTIONED hate speech, but were mistakenly thought to have USED it. (See: use/mention as a more general problem). A lot of people are just dumb, and we should figure out what to do about that, without thereby dumbing down reality for the rest of us.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#70 Post by Hype » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:10 am

Here's another take: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/c ... 789470.ece

The professor seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth:
I support the right of free speech as part of a right of dissent. But that does not mean that I support every particular exercise of free speech or dissent. It is well known that the history of free speech is contradictory. We recognise it by distinguishing ‘hate speech’ from other forms of free speech. Some states ban ‘hate speech’ legally, other states refrain from a legal ban and leave it to society to discourage it politically and morally.

...

My own preference is for the political and the intellectual over the legal. I am against all forms of censorship. While I think you have a right to say what you think, I will not support anything you say or write. I also reserve the right to disagree with you, vehemently if necessary. It is one thing to support the right of Charlie Hebdo journalists to print the cartoons they did, and quite another to reprint them as an expression of support.
He should have said that a support for free speech means a support for the exercise of it, even when that is not support for the content or the intended meaning or effect of the content. Basically, this professor needs to talk to some philosophers (and probably linguists) about how language works. In the second paragraph above, he again mistakes support for a form of expression with support for its content, and so much so that he conflates the formal support involved in reprinting something with an expression of support for what it says. This is just bad thinking. But the article is important because it shows that these issues are not well understood.

For a while I "followed" Hugo Chavez's official Twitter account. Some people might think that implies "following" Chavez in the sense of "being a follower of Chavez's political views" or of supporting the things he says (especially if, say, I retweeted them, which I might have...). But this is painfully misguided. It need not be made explicit that one might wish to be exposed to views with which one may or may not disagree (how do you know until you are exposed to them and think about them?) without thereby being held accountable, as if one has accepted the content as true...

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#71 Post by SR » Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:54 am

I am familiar with Sorrows but have not read it. Strange you bring it up as a play I have written revolves around a self sequestered upper middle class beautiful 16 year old who goes on a hunger strike, sparking a pandemic of pretty teens doing the same nationwide. She seeks a more coercive end and less emo, but I I'll have to go back after some more thought and look at the chemistry of discourse again.

Close to 15 years ago I remember a group of students and myself having a water cooler discussion and the subject turned to god, and god's plan. I explained my view and set up a syllogism that trapped the girl. The conclusion was not on her radar and she burst into tears. I felt like (and was) a complete donkey for this as the classes I taught had nothing to do with this area of thought and the disconnect between me as an adult and her, as a young adult... with very little formal education and a profound emotional devotion and connection to her god was a volatile mix.

User avatar
perkana
Posts: 5394
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:28 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#72 Post by perkana » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:08 pm

In the mess of blood and tears and accusations of racism flying around, cultural difference is a sensitive issue. Offence is often caused by the conflation of culture, religion and identity.
Unravelling the cultural is key in understanding the differences within faiths as well as between them. Where there is ignorance of how identities are formed there can be no tolerance. The lost boys who cling to dogma do not even know their own history, never mind anyone else’s.
Voltaire once asked what tolerance meant and said this wonderful thing: “It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each others’ folly – that is the first law of nature.” There is the crux: reciprocity. I keep hearing that free speech is a right with a responsibility, although surely it cannot attempt to be responsible to everyone. If tolerance is about something reciprocal, then it becomes very difficult. And important.
Out of courtesy we may choose not to publish images that cause hurt but we are not duty-bound by that. Do I have the right to enter the male-only spaces of many sacred places? It may be none of my business what women of faith do but I am offended by segregation, by literal interpretations of texts, by the treatment of women as second‑class citizens.
Oh sure, this is the wrong time to bang on about gender when cartoonists and Jews are being slaughtered in Paris and thousands are being killed and raped in Nigeria. Because isn’t it always? When hate speech is everywhere, when antisemitism thrives, when we are nervous about publishing images of Muhammad – and this is just Europe – then women’s rights are not top of the agenda. But let’s make the connection here between those who would ban imagery and those who wouldn’t.There is much discussion of us and them, but the “them” are not simply or only Muslims. There are ultra-conservative forces at work at the moment, some deadly, and what they all share is an absolute refusal to give women agency and autonomy. So don’t ask me to have respect for these kinds of fundamentalism that have none for me.
Critique is not blasphemy. Texts can be reinterpreted. Tolerance has to be reciprocal or it is not tolerance at all. We should at least be honest now. Those who don’t believe in any god have as many rights as those who do.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -my-crimes

User avatar
perkana
Posts: 5394
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:28 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#73 Post by perkana » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:20 pm

We don’t have a context for this tradition here, merciless, political satire. One thing I keep noticing is commentators here are pointing out that the cartoons were very offensive and insulting. It’s as if we don’t understand that was by design. Very intentionally offensive, and very clear about why that couldn’t be compromised. That’s the part we don’t get, as Americans. It’s like, “Why did they have to be so mean?”

It’s a French thing, yeah, and they value that very highly here, which is why there’s like a huge amount of sympathy for the killing of those guys, you know, huge demonstrations and crowds in Paris – people holding up signs that say, “Je suis Charlie.” Even here in the village where I live, we had a demonstration yesterday out in front of the town hall. About 30 people showed up and held up “Je suis Charlie” signs.



Read more at http://observer.com/2015/01/legendary-c ... -in-paris/
Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook
I would say it's the same here for Mexican satire...
These guys were not trying not to offend, and that’s what an American media-conditioned mind cannot understand. The idea that yes, you offend those who abuse power.

[Laughs.] No, they can’t.

It’s not the faith that is being insulted. It’s the extremism, the psychosis. The totalitarian impulse.

Aline [Mr. Crumb’s wife is the cartoonist Aline Kominsky-Crumb] saw something on the internet…All the big newspapers and magazines in America had all agreed, mutually agreed, not to print those offensive cartoons that were in that Charlie Hebdo magazine. They all agreed that they were not going to print those, because they were too insulting to the Prophet. Charlie Hebdo, it didn’t have a big circulation. A lot of French people said, “Yes, it was tasteless, but I defend their right to freedom of speech.” Yeah, it was tasteless, that’s what they say. And perhaps it was. I’m not going to make a career out of baiting some fucking religious fanatics, you know, by insulting their prophet. I wouldn’t do that. That seems crazy. But then, after they got killed, I just had to draw that cartoon, you know, showing the Prophet. The cartoon I drew shows me, myself, holding up a cartoon that I’ve just drawn. A crude drawing of an ass that’s labeled “The Hairy Ass of Muhammed.” [Laughs.]
Image
Charlie Hebdo, they print so many insulting cartoons about Muslim extremists, you know, geez, they just kept at it, you know…but that wasn’t the only people they insulted, they insulted everybody. The Pope, the President of the country, everybody! They were merciless, to everybody. It was a really funny magazine. They just didn’t hold back towards anybody. You know, they didn’t let anybody off the hook, which was good.

User avatar
Essence_Smith
Posts: 2224
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#74 Post by Essence_Smith » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:34 pm

I have only skimmed this thread...I just wonder if it's possible to satire terrorists and people who perform violent acts in the name of religion without actually appearing to criticize the religion...I think it is...without having seen the "cartoon" or knowing what is was that was found to be offensive I still think it's possible. I can make fun of televangelists without the average christian feeling offended I'm sure...do people even try that hard when it comes to Islam? That being said I think the so called extremists are pretty much looking for excuses to go nuts and kill people...and I think people generally need to have the understanding that these people don't represent the average follower of Islam. I get worried that people don't really try that hard to separate the two even if they say they do...

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Paris Attack

#75 Post by Hype » Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:42 pm

Essence_Smith wrote:I have only skimmed this thread...I just wonder if it's possible to satire terrorists and people who perform violent acts in the name of religion without actually appearing to criticize the religion...I think it is...without having seen the "cartoon" or knowing what is was that was found to be offensive I still think it's possible. I can make fun of televangelists without the average christian feeling offended I'm sure...do people even try that hard when it comes to Islam? That being said I think the so called extremists are pretty much looking for excuses to go nuts and kill people...and I think people generally need to have the understanding that these people don't represent the average follower of Islam. I get worried that people don't really try that hard to separate the two even if they say they do...
This is what the Dan Dennett exchange is about... Dennett wrote a book called "Breaking the Spell" about religion as a natural phenomenon, and he has since always said that it really struck him how no matter what he wrote or how inoffensive he thought he was being, people would inevitably find his attempts to describe religion clearly and objectively offensive. People don't want their faith examined, because faith works through ignorance, fear, and superstition. Everyone has these to some degree (even us atheists)... but some people generate all the meaning in their lives out of them, and to question that in any way is to start pulling out pieces of the foundation underneath their comfortable houses and community centres... It's not a nice feeling, I'm sure, but that's what faith gets you in the end.

I know ordinary Catholics who barely practice their religion or know much about it, but who refuse to believe that any priests have raped children, because that just can't be true. :confused: This is the kind of mentality we're dealing with. And some of these people will get so angry as a result of having any of their faith questioned that they'll attack innocent people as a result.

Oh, and um... keep in mind that this all gets heavily mixed up in regional power-politics in many countries... It was only a few decades ago that the Irish were bombing each other and other innocent people over this same stupid shit. :confused:

Post Reply