Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 41 seconds ago
my views on extremism
I do not know the actual statistics but i am sure there are over 1 billion muslims. From a statistical point of view the fact that thousand of muslims carry out heinous crimes is actually a very small statistic.
Carrying out this crime under the slogan of islam is the bigger problem. The negative PR. Cos ignorant non muslims begin to percieve other billion or so muslims as a threat.
The muslim community imho should be the one to take the strongest actions in reprimanding this extremists. Non muslims reprimanding creates and us against them mentality in which many muslims feel they are being persecuted. An environment to breed the next generation of terrorists as we are seeing today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have come out to bash these clowns. The police officer shot at CH was a muslim, he was the first person they killed. I still do not understand why muslims have to come out and apologise for these animals.
Do Christians come out and apologise for Názis, KKK and other acts perpetrated by Christian terrorists like Breivik?
These people are not religious, they are lunatics. Pure and simple
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 19 seconds ago
Oh no they drew a picture of a guy who doesn't exist, and upset some deluded followers of such fictional being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about what you think is real or not. It's about the magazine INTENTIONALLY provoking and vilifying a section of society with something they hold dear. It's not about the actual content itself necessarily.
....
The magazine was aimed at a certain audience, an audience who buy the magazine because they enjoy the comedy and satire. I'm not sure their aim was to wind up as many people as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please watch this video containing the content and tell me what is comical or satirical about the content?
http://youtu.be/U56q428amN0
Regardless, if I wanted to do 'satire' about 9/11 would it be welcomed as equally?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not see a difference with mocking different religions and mocking the murder of thousands of innocent people?
Are you facking for real?
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 41 seconds ago
my views on extremism
I do not know the actual statistics but i am sure there are over 1 billion muslims. From a statistical point of view the fact that thousand of muslims carry out heinous crimes is actually a very small statistic.
Carrying out this crime under the slogan of islam is the bigger problem. The negative PR. Cos ignorant non muslims begin to percieve other billion or so muslims as a threat.
The muslim community imho should be the one to take the strongest actions in reprimanding this extremists. Non muslims reprimanding creates and us against them mentality in which many muslims feel they are being persecuted. An environment to breed the next generation of terrorists as we are seeing today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have come out to bash these clowns. The police officer shot at CH was a muslim, he was the first person they killed. I still do not understand why muslims have to come out and apologise for these animals.
Do Christians come out and apologise for Názis, KKK and other acts perpetrated by Christian terrorists like Breivik?
These people are not religious, they are lunatics. Pure and simple
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
The hypocrisy is terrible and insulting. It actually suggests that muslims as a whole need to be told that what happened is not ok.
Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle · 20h 20 hours ago
Glad everyone's celebrating free speech in Trafalgar Square, and not in Parliament Square where they'd be arrested.
Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle · Jan 8
I'm reading a defence of free speech in a paper that tried to have me arrested and charged with obscenity for making a joke about the Queen
Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle · Jan 7
It's important to maintain free speech so that we can use it to call for things to be censored and tweeters to be jailed
Has anyone noticed the vast majority of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by men, not women? That is quite likely a more common trait than religious orientation. It would require further research, but I'd also guess they are overwhelmingly heterosexual.
Society needs to act NOW gainst heterosexual males.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by UnitedRedMacca (U2024)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 19 seconds ago
Oh no they drew a picture of a guy who doesn't exist, and upset some deluded followers of such fictional being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about what you think is real or not. It's about the magazine INTENTIONALLY provoking and vilifying a section of society with something they hold dear. It's not about the actual content itself necessarily.
....
The magazine was aimed at a certain audience, an audience who buy the magazine because they enjoy the comedy and satire. I'm not sure their aim was to wind up as many people as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please watch this video containing the content and tell me what is comical or satirical about the content?
http://youtu.be/U56q428amN0
Regardless, if I wanted to do 'satire' about 9/11 would it be welcomed as equally?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not see a difference with mocking different religions and mocking the murder of thousands of innocent people?
Are you facking for real?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we talking about free speech or not? because we can't have it both ways, that's my point.
comment by UnitedRedMacca (U2024)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 19 seconds ago
Oh no they drew a picture of a guy who doesn't exist, and upset some deluded followers of such fictional being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about what you think is real or not. It's about the magazine INTENTIONALLY provoking and vilifying a section of society with something they hold dear. It's not about the actual content itself necessarily.
....
The magazine was aimed at a certain audience, an audience who buy the magazine because they enjoy the comedy and satire. I'm not sure their aim was to wind up as many people as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please watch this video containing the content and tell me what is comical or satirical about the content?
http://youtu.be/U56q428amN0
Regardless, if I wanted to do 'satire' about 9/11 would it be welcomed as equally?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not see a difference with mocking different religions and mocking the murder of thousands of innocent people?
Are you facking for real?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In its purest sense, as far as freedom of speech goes, there is little difference. Just the amount of buttons that would be pressed.
All we are saying, is give
........
............................
...............
...................................
......................
a chance.
By Brian Klug, a philosopher from Oxford: Je suis charlie? I'm not. I read this on a blog today; it is a version of a claim that has been made over and over again in the last couple of days, lionising Charlie Hebdo: "In its cartoons, Charlie Hebdo did not discriminate. The magazine lampooned all and sundry in its cartoons: racists, bigots, right-wing politicians, the uber-rich, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and more." And what does 'more' include? More to the point: what does it not include? Did they, for example, lampoon journalists who, in the name of freedom of expression, mock Muslims and Jews regardless of the consequences? Did they, in other words, ever satirize themselves? Apparently Charlie Hebdo has announced it will produce a million copies of its next issue. Will this issue ridicule the scenes of mourning and solemn demonstrations on the grand boulevards of Paris, poking fun at people who raised pens skyward and lit candles in the dark? And why not? Nothing is sacred. Wouldn't this be just the kind of outrageous act, defying convention and challenging popular ideas of decency, that puts freedom of expression to the test? Here is a thought experiment: Suppose that while the demonstrators stood solemnly at Place de la Republique the other night, holding up their pens and wearing their "je suis charlie" badges, a man stepped out in front holding a water pistol aloft and wearing a badge that said "je suis cherif" (the first name of one of the two brothers who gunned down the Charlie Hebdo staff). Suppose he was carrying a placard with a cartoon depicting the editor of the magazine lying in a pool of blood, saying, "Well I'll be a son of a gun!" or "You've really blown me away!" or some such witticism. How would the crowd have reacted? Would they have laughed? Would they have applauded this gesture as quintessentially French? Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended? And infuriated. And then what? Perhaps many of them would have denounced the offender, screaming imprecations at him. Some might have thrown their pens at him. One or two individuals -- two brothers perhaps -- might have raced towards him and (cheered on by the crowd) attacked him with their fists, smashing his head against the ground. All in the name of freedom of expression. He would have been lucky to get away with his life. Masses of people have turned the victims of a horrific assassination (which the staff of the magazine truly are) into heroes of France and free speech. The point of the thought experiment is not to show that these masses of people are hypocrites. Rather, it is to suggest that they don't know their own minds. And when people don't know their own minds -- but think they do -- they are liable to be swept away by blind moral passion; which is just what we don't need as the storm clouds gather on the European horizon. Dr Brian Klug - Faculty of Philosophy Currently working on Wittgenstein on culture and religion; 'race', racialisation and multiculturalism; Islamophobia and antisemitism; Jewish identity.
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by UnitedRedMacca (U2024)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 19 seconds ago
Oh no they drew a picture of a guy who doesn't exist, and upset some deluded followers of such fictional being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about what you think is real or not. It's about the magazine INTENTIONALLY provoking and vilifying a section of society with something they hold dear. It's not about the actual content itself necessarily.
....
The magazine was aimed at a certain audience, an audience who buy the magazine because they enjoy the comedy and satire. I'm not sure their aim was to wind up as many people as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please watch this video containing the content and tell me what is comical or satirical about the content?
http://youtu.be/U56q428amN0
Regardless, if I wanted to do 'satire' about 9/11 would it be welcomed as equally?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not see a difference with mocking different religions and mocking the murder of thousands of innocent people?
Are you facking for real?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we talking about free speech or not? because we can't have it both ways, that's my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's free speech, nevertheless
comment by Goonerbabe (U11922)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 41 seconds ago
my views on extremism
I do not know the actual statistics but i am sure there are over 1 billion muslims. From a statistical point of view the fact that thousand of muslims carry out heinous crimes is actually a very small statistic.
Carrying out this crime under the slogan of islam is the bigger problem. The negative PR. Cos ignorant non muslims begin to percieve other billion or so muslims as a threat.
The muslim community imho should be the one to take the strongest actions in reprimanding this extremists. Non muslims reprimanding creates and us against them mentality in which many muslims feel they are being persecuted. An environment to breed the next generation of terrorists as we are seeing today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have come out to bash these clowns. The police officer shot at CH was a muslim, he was the first person they killed. I still do not understand why muslims have to come out and apologise for these animals.
Do Christians come out and apologise for Názis, KKK and other acts perpetrated by Christian terrorists like Breivik?
These people are not religious, they are lunatics. Pure and simple
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They always condemn with exudes though like you just did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If all muslims are responsible for extremism, then all christians are responsible for extremism.
Right?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
If I started a magazine tomorrow and did cartoons of jesus sucking off Ian Watkins etc i'm sure the worst that would happen would be a slap on the wrist from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
If I did the same with He who shall not be named i'd have to wear a bulletproof vest and get used to the idea of playing a harp in the clouds.
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 41 seconds ago
my views on extremism
I do not know the actual statistics but i am sure there are over 1 billion muslims. From a statistical point of view the fact that thousand of muslims carry out heinous crimes is actually a very small statistic.
Carrying out this crime under the slogan of islam is the bigger problem. The negative PR. Cos ignorant non muslims begin to percieve other billion or so muslims as a threat.
The muslim community imho should be the one to take the strongest actions in reprimanding this extremists. Non muslims reprimanding creates and us against them mentality in which many muslims feel they are being persecuted. An environment to breed the next generation of terrorists as we are seeing today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have come out to bash these clowns. The police officer shot at CH was a muslim, he was the first person they killed. I still do not understand why muslims have to come out and apologise for these animals.
----------------------
dude
I am neithe antimuslim or pro christain just to be clear
simply stating the only solution
when I talk of reprimand I am not talking about select few head of mosques saying this people are not muslims in newspapers/tv.
I am talking about them taking a pro-active role on the frontline fight against terrorism.
Syria was the perfect situation for muslim leaders to be pro-active but choose to take a back seat. leading to passive western intervention. This is but one example.
First off the action of these extremist insult Islam. They are no way Muslims as media will have you believe. These terrorists are psychopaths that are not humans.
Now for CH, yes they provoked reactions but from my understanding they poked at every religion, though Muslims do hold Prophet Muhammad in much higher regard than other religions do of their perspective figures. But the magazine was left wing rather than right wing as it may seem. It often called out for immigrants to be legalised for example.
comment by Lefty (U17934)
posted 31 seconds ago
ok - Why is it always those associated with Islam??
Read the news, open the papers......always the same story.
-------
If in the events you're talking about the papers bring in Islam or Muslim even though those acts were not said to have been done "in the name of" by the perpetrators... then you should make the distinction and not be led by what the papers say.
There's some people on this forum that are either a bit disturbing or just unable to understand relatively simple ideas.
Obviously in order to protects the rights to freedom of speech, you have to be prepared to defend the rights of people to say things that might be disliked or deemed unpopular. That much is obvious and there seems to be consensus on this. Good.
However, we're talking about a terrible tragedy - a wicked crime - that befell a satirical magazine. I've seen it mentioned that the magazine satirised 'all sorts of groups'. That's a little misleading.
In a recent study, only 26% of people said that Islam was compatible with French society versus 89% and 75% for Catholicism and Judaism. So what's the point here?
It should be obvious, but again, looking at the responses in both this thread and others recently, plainly this will fly over people's heads. Let's just skip to the part where I'm somehow accused of 'justifying' violence as witnessed in Paris...
Satire should be aimed at power. Not groups who are constantly persecuted and under attack. If Charlie Hebdo or any other publication in France or elsewhere satirise and 'take the p1ss' out of all religions equally in their coverage, then the impact is not equal. For the publication, or any publication, to accurately satirise religions or certain groups in society, it should be on a per capita-style basis. Based on how compatible certain religions are deemed to be within French society, the primary targets of that satire should be Catholics.
Muslims are a much more vulnerable and demonised community than Jews or Christians in France. The consequences of "free speech" against Muslims as a group (aka hate speech) are therefore much more dangerous.
That not justifying the acts. It's pointing out that a) words, speech and so on often have likely and predictable consequences and that b) When groups of people are demonised and feel under attack, certain elements within that group will become motivated to strike back in some way. Unfortunately often through violence.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 41 seconds ago
my views on extremism
I do not know the actual statistics but i am sure there are over 1 billion muslims. From a statistical point of view the fact that thousand of muslims carry out heinous crimes is actually a very small statistic.
Carrying out this crime under the slogan of islam is the bigger problem. The negative PR. Cos ignorant non muslims begin to percieve other billion or so muslims as a threat.
The muslim community imho should be the one to take the strongest actions in reprimanding this extremists. Non muslims reprimanding creates and us against them mentality in which many muslims feel they are being persecuted. An environment to breed the next generation of terrorists as we are seeing today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have come out to bash these clowns. The police officer shot at CH was a muslim, he was the first person they killed. I still do not understand why muslims have to come out and apologise for these animals.
----------------------
dude
I am neithe antimuslim or pro christain just to be clear
simply stating the only solution
when I talk of reprimand I am not talking about select few head of mosques saying this people are not muslims in newspapers/tv.
I am talking about them taking a pro-active role on the frontline fight against terrorism.
Syria was the perfect situation for muslim leaders to be pro-active but choose to take a back seat. leading to passive western intervention. This is but one example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You realise that there are muslims dying everyday in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan fighting extremists, right?
In a world where we all co exist, we need to work together to stop these astrotisties
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw
Je ne suis pas Charlie
Page 9 of 39
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 12/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/1/15
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 41 seconds ago
my views on extremism
I do not know the actual statistics but i am sure there are over 1 billion muslims. From a statistical point of view the fact that thousand of muslims carry out heinous crimes is actually a very small statistic.
Carrying out this crime under the slogan of islam is the bigger problem. The negative PR. Cos ignorant non muslims begin to percieve other billion or so muslims as a threat.
The muslim community imho should be the one to take the strongest actions in reprimanding this extremists. Non muslims reprimanding creates and us against them mentality in which many muslims feel they are being persecuted. An environment to breed the next generation of terrorists as we are seeing today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have come out to bash these clowns. The police officer shot at CH was a muslim, he was the first person they killed. I still do not understand why muslims have to come out and apologise for these animals.
Do Christians come out and apologise for Názis, KKK and other acts perpetrated by Christian terrorists like Breivik?
These people are not religious, they are lunatics. Pure and simple
posted on 12/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/1/15
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 19 seconds ago
Oh no they drew a picture of a guy who doesn't exist, and upset some deluded followers of such fictional being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about what you think is real or not. It's about the magazine INTENTIONALLY provoking and vilifying a section of society with something they hold dear. It's not about the actual content itself necessarily.
....
The magazine was aimed at a certain audience, an audience who buy the magazine because they enjoy the comedy and satire. I'm not sure their aim was to wind up as many people as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please watch this video containing the content and tell me what is comical or satirical about the content?
http://youtu.be/U56q428amN0
Regardless, if I wanted to do 'satire' about 9/11 would it be welcomed as equally?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not see a difference with mocking different religions and mocking the murder of thousands of innocent people?
Are you facking for real?
posted on 12/1/15
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 41 seconds ago
my views on extremism
I do not know the actual statistics but i am sure there are over 1 billion muslims. From a statistical point of view the fact that thousand of muslims carry out heinous crimes is actually a very small statistic.
Carrying out this crime under the slogan of islam is the bigger problem. The negative PR. Cos ignorant non muslims begin to percieve other billion or so muslims as a threat.
The muslim community imho should be the one to take the strongest actions in reprimanding this extremists. Non muslims reprimanding creates and us against them mentality in which many muslims feel they are being persecuted. An environment to breed the next generation of terrorists as we are seeing today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have come out to bash these clowns. The police officer shot at CH was a muslim, he was the first person they killed. I still do not understand why muslims have to come out and apologise for these animals.
Do Christians come out and apologise for Názis, KKK and other acts perpetrated by Christian terrorists like Breivik?
These people are not religious, they are lunatics. Pure and simple
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
The hypocrisy is terrible and insulting. It actually suggests that muslims as a whole need to be told that what happened is not ok.
posted on 12/1/15
Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle · 20h 20 hours ago
Glad everyone's celebrating free speech in Trafalgar Square, and not in Parliament Square where they'd be arrested.
Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle · Jan 8
I'm reading a defence of free speech in a paper that tried to have me arrested and charged with obscenity for making a joke about the Queen
Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle · Jan 7
It's important to maintain free speech so that we can use it to call for things to be censored and tweeters to be jailed
posted on 12/1/15
Has anyone noticed the vast majority of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by men, not women? That is quite likely a more common trait than religious orientation. It would require further research, but I'd also guess they are overwhelmingly heterosexual.
Society needs to act NOW gainst heterosexual males.
posted on 12/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/1/15
comment by UnitedRedMacca (U2024)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 19 seconds ago
Oh no they drew a picture of a guy who doesn't exist, and upset some deluded followers of such fictional being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about what you think is real or not. It's about the magazine INTENTIONALLY provoking and vilifying a section of society with something they hold dear. It's not about the actual content itself necessarily.
....
The magazine was aimed at a certain audience, an audience who buy the magazine because they enjoy the comedy and satire. I'm not sure their aim was to wind up as many people as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please watch this video containing the content and tell me what is comical or satirical about the content?
http://youtu.be/U56q428amN0
Regardless, if I wanted to do 'satire' about 9/11 would it be welcomed as equally?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not see a difference with mocking different religions and mocking the murder of thousands of innocent people?
Are you facking for real?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we talking about free speech or not? because we can't have it both ways, that's my point.
posted on 12/1/15
comment by UnitedRedMacca (U2024)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 19 seconds ago
Oh no they drew a picture of a guy who doesn't exist, and upset some deluded followers of such fictional being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about what you think is real or not. It's about the magazine INTENTIONALLY provoking and vilifying a section of society with something they hold dear. It's not about the actual content itself necessarily.
....
The magazine was aimed at a certain audience, an audience who buy the magazine because they enjoy the comedy and satire. I'm not sure their aim was to wind up as many people as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please watch this video containing the content and tell me what is comical or satirical about the content?
http://youtu.be/U56q428amN0
Regardless, if I wanted to do 'satire' about 9/11 would it be welcomed as equally?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not see a difference with mocking different religions and mocking the murder of thousands of innocent people?
Are you facking for real?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In its purest sense, as far as freedom of speech goes, there is little difference. Just the amount of buttons that would be pressed.
posted on 12/1/15
All we are saying, is give
........
............................
...............
...................................
......................
a chance.
posted on 12/1/15
By Brian Klug, a philosopher from Oxford: Je suis charlie? I'm not. I read this on a blog today; it is a version of a claim that has been made over and over again in the last couple of days, lionising Charlie Hebdo: "In its cartoons, Charlie Hebdo did not discriminate. The magazine lampooned all and sundry in its cartoons: racists, bigots, right-wing politicians, the uber-rich, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and more." And what does 'more' include? More to the point: what does it not include? Did they, for example, lampoon journalists who, in the name of freedom of expression, mock Muslims and Jews regardless of the consequences? Did they, in other words, ever satirize themselves? Apparently Charlie Hebdo has announced it will produce a million copies of its next issue. Will this issue ridicule the scenes of mourning and solemn demonstrations on the grand boulevards of Paris, poking fun at people who raised pens skyward and lit candles in the dark? And why not? Nothing is sacred. Wouldn't this be just the kind of outrageous act, defying convention and challenging popular ideas of decency, that puts freedom of expression to the test? Here is a thought experiment: Suppose that while the demonstrators stood solemnly at Place de la Republique the other night, holding up their pens and wearing their "je suis charlie" badges, a man stepped out in front holding a water pistol aloft and wearing a badge that said "je suis cherif" (the first name of one of the two brothers who gunned down the Charlie Hebdo staff). Suppose he was carrying a placard with a cartoon depicting the editor of the magazine lying in a pool of blood, saying, "Well I'll be a son of a gun!" or "You've really blown me away!" or some such witticism. How would the crowd have reacted? Would they have laughed? Would they have applauded this gesture as quintessentially French? Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended? And infuriated. And then what? Perhaps many of them would have denounced the offender, screaming imprecations at him. Some might have thrown their pens at him. One or two individuals -- two brothers perhaps -- might have raced towards him and (cheered on by the crowd) attacked him with their fists, smashing his head against the ground. All in the name of freedom of expression. He would have been lucky to get away with his life. Masses of people have turned the victims of a horrific assassination (which the staff of the magazine truly are) into heroes of France and free speech. The point of the thought experiment is not to show that these masses of people are hypocrites. Rather, it is to suggest that they don't know their own minds. And when people don't know their own minds -- but think they do -- they are liable to be swept away by blind moral passion; which is just what we don't need as the storm clouds gather on the European horizon. Dr Brian Klug - Faculty of Philosophy Currently working on Wittgenstein on culture and religion; 'race', racialisation and multiculturalism; Islamophobia and antisemitism; Jewish identity.
posted on 12/1/15
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by UnitedRedMacca (U2024)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Bebe's Slow Dance With Sir Neil Warnock - A National Treasure (U13709)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ruiney Reckers (U1005)
posted 19 seconds ago
Oh no they drew a picture of a guy who doesn't exist, and upset some deluded followers of such fictional being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about what you think is real or not. It's about the magazine INTENTIONALLY provoking and vilifying a section of society with something they hold dear. It's not about the actual content itself necessarily.
....
The magazine was aimed at a certain audience, an audience who buy the magazine because they enjoy the comedy and satire. I'm not sure their aim was to wind up as many people as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please watch this video containing the content and tell me what is comical or satirical about the content?
http://youtu.be/U56q428amN0
Regardless, if I wanted to do 'satire' about 9/11 would it be welcomed as equally?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not see a difference with mocking different religions and mocking the murder of thousands of innocent people?
Are you facking for real?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we talking about free speech or not? because we can't have it both ways, that's my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's free speech, nevertheless
posted on 12/1/15
comment by Goonerbabe (U11922)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 41 seconds ago
my views on extremism
I do not know the actual statistics but i am sure there are over 1 billion muslims. From a statistical point of view the fact that thousand of muslims carry out heinous crimes is actually a very small statistic.
Carrying out this crime under the slogan of islam is the bigger problem. The negative PR. Cos ignorant non muslims begin to percieve other billion or so muslims as a threat.
The muslim community imho should be the one to take the strongest actions in reprimanding this extremists. Non muslims reprimanding creates and us against them mentality in which many muslims feel they are being persecuted. An environment to breed the next generation of terrorists as we are seeing today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have come out to bash these clowns. The police officer shot at CH was a muslim, he was the first person they killed. I still do not understand why muslims have to come out and apologise for these animals.
Do Christians come out and apologise for Názis, KKK and other acts perpetrated by Christian terrorists like Breivik?
These people are not religious, they are lunatics. Pure and simple
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They always condemn with exudes though like you just did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If all muslims are responsible for extremism, then all christians are responsible for extremism.
Right?
posted on 12/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/1/15
If I started a magazine tomorrow and did cartoons of jesus sucking off Ian Watkins etc i'm sure the worst that would happen would be a slap on the wrist from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
If I did the same with He who shall not be named i'd have to wear a bulletproof vest and get used to the idea of playing a harp in the clouds.
posted on 12/1/15
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 41 seconds ago
my views on extremism
I do not know the actual statistics but i am sure there are over 1 billion muslims. From a statistical point of view the fact that thousand of muslims carry out heinous crimes is actually a very small statistic.
Carrying out this crime under the slogan of islam is the bigger problem. The negative PR. Cos ignorant non muslims begin to percieve other billion or so muslims as a threat.
The muslim community imho should be the one to take the strongest actions in reprimanding this extremists. Non muslims reprimanding creates and us against them mentality in which many muslims feel they are being persecuted. An environment to breed the next generation of terrorists as we are seeing today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have come out to bash these clowns. The police officer shot at CH was a muslim, he was the first person they killed. I still do not understand why muslims have to come out and apologise for these animals.
----------------------
dude
I am neithe antimuslim or pro christain just to be clear
simply stating the only solution
when I talk of reprimand I am not talking about select few head of mosques saying this people are not muslims in newspapers/tv.
I am talking about them taking a pro-active role on the frontline fight against terrorism.
Syria was the perfect situation for muslim leaders to be pro-active but choose to take a back seat. leading to passive western intervention. This is but one example.
posted on 12/1/15
First off the action of these extremist insult Islam. They are no way Muslims as media will have you believe. These terrorists are psychopaths that are not humans.
Now for CH, yes they provoked reactions but from my understanding they poked at every religion, though Muslims do hold Prophet Muhammad in much higher regard than other religions do of their perspective figures. But the magazine was left wing rather than right wing as it may seem. It often called out for immigrants to be legalised for example.
posted on 12/1/15
comment by Lefty (U17934)
posted 31 seconds ago
ok - Why is it always those associated with Islam??
Read the news, open the papers......always the same story.
-------
If in the events you're talking about the papers bring in Islam or Muslim even though those acts were not said to have been done "in the name of" by the perpetrators... then you should make the distinction and not be led by what the papers say.
posted on 12/1/15
There's some people on this forum that are either a bit disturbing or just unable to understand relatively simple ideas.
Obviously in order to protects the rights to freedom of speech, you have to be prepared to defend the rights of people to say things that might be disliked or deemed unpopular. That much is obvious and there seems to be consensus on this. Good.
However, we're talking about a terrible tragedy - a wicked crime - that befell a satirical magazine. I've seen it mentioned that the magazine satirised 'all sorts of groups'. That's a little misleading.
In a recent study, only 26% of people said that Islam was compatible with French society versus 89% and 75% for Catholicism and Judaism. So what's the point here?
It should be obvious, but again, looking at the responses in both this thread and others recently, plainly this will fly over people's heads. Let's just skip to the part where I'm somehow accused of 'justifying' violence as witnessed in Paris...
Satire should be aimed at power. Not groups who are constantly persecuted and under attack. If Charlie Hebdo or any other publication in France or elsewhere satirise and 'take the p1ss' out of all religions equally in their coverage, then the impact is not equal. For the publication, or any publication, to accurately satirise religions or certain groups in society, it should be on a per capita-style basis. Based on how compatible certain religions are deemed to be within French society, the primary targets of that satire should be Catholics.
Muslims are a much more vulnerable and demonised community than Jews or Christians in France. The consequences of "free speech" against Muslims as a group (aka hate speech) are therefore much more dangerous.
That not justifying the acts. It's pointing out that a) words, speech and so on often have likely and predictable consequences and that b) When groups of people are demonised and feel under attack, certain elements within that group will become motivated to strike back in some way. Unfortunately often through violence.
posted on 12/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/1/15
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by the GINGER PRINCE'S apprentice (U13920)
posted 41 seconds ago
my views on extremism
I do not know the actual statistics but i am sure there are over 1 billion muslims. From a statistical point of view the fact that thousand of muslims carry out heinous crimes is actually a very small statistic.
Carrying out this crime under the slogan of islam is the bigger problem. The negative PR. Cos ignorant non muslims begin to percieve other billion or so muslims as a threat.
The muslim community imho should be the one to take the strongest actions in reprimanding this extremists. Non muslims reprimanding creates and us against them mentality in which many muslims feel they are being persecuted. An environment to breed the next generation of terrorists as we are seeing today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have come out to bash these clowns. The police officer shot at CH was a muslim, he was the first person they killed. I still do not understand why muslims have to come out and apologise for these animals.
----------------------
dude
I am neithe antimuslim or pro christain just to be clear
simply stating the only solution
when I talk of reprimand I am not talking about select few head of mosques saying this people are not muslims in newspapers/tv.
I am talking about them taking a pro-active role on the frontline fight against terrorism.
Syria was the perfect situation for muslim leaders to be pro-active but choose to take a back seat. leading to passive western intervention. This is but one example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You realise that there are muslims dying everyday in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan fighting extremists, right?
posted on 12/1/15
In a world where we all co exist, we need to work together to stop these astrotisties
posted on 12/1/15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw
Page 9 of 39
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14