Author Topic: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)  (Read 22715 times)

Offline Sharky

  • *
  • Posts: 3882
  • Total Meseta: 44
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2015, 02:08:52 pm »
This was bound to happen...
Made by SEGA

Offline MadeManG74

  • *
  • Posts: 5522
  • Total Meseta: 1326
  • Hot, Wild Vision
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2015, 02:31:27 pm »
This was bound to happen...

It was growing significantly before the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegida#Development

From ~400 people in October to 25~40k people most recently. It's clear that there is growing support. It seems to be a real concern around Europe in general over the last couple of years, and I don't think it's just a case of 'racism'.

I do think most people in the protests are non-radical and are airing their concerns towards the government and immigration (Germany currently receives more Asylum seekers than any other country and there was a drastic increase between 2013 and 2014).


Reading their manifesto on the wiki, it doesn't sound like they want to halt all immigration, but rather increase social workers to immigrant ratio and change the policies to match that of other nations when it comes to accepting refugees and asylum seekers.

I just hope that it continues to be peaceful protests. It's better than throwing grenades at mosques.


EDIT: I should point out this doesn't mean I'm in support of them, but I'm trying to learn more about them and how they are growing so quickly.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2015, 02:34:58 pm by MadeManG74 »

Offline CrazyT

  • *
  • Posts: 2787
  • Total Meseta: 100
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2015, 09:41:31 pm »
The reason the most powerful people are usually pricks, is actually very simple. People who strive to, and also succeed to attain positions of power are often the kinds of people who will put those aspirations above all else, including friends, family and relationships. To put power above people often takes someone with a low sense of empathy. So an unfortunate side effect of that is that we have people power who lack empathy for other humans.

As for Evil... Evil is not a force in the universe like time, gravity, energy, light... It's just a word to describe particularly nasty acts.
So its ego/selfishness then? I feel like "dark" emotions like greed, envy, anger and petty for example come from a real disturbing force. They can change and take over control a human being in such a way that its just scary sometimes. I've witnessed it a couple of times and it seems way too complex of an emotion to be part of our nature "just cause". When for example a human would create something that shows such reaction, we'd call it "programmed" because of how it is designed and works. It seems some people refrain and resist to give in to these emotions, cuz they feel and are selfaware that they are bad. Others are more easily convinced to give in and that's when things go wrong I think


Quote
And finally,  if you really think all those millions of people protested in support of the Charlie Hedbo comics you are missing the point. The comics usually run a print of 60k per month and of those only 30k are sold. The company was on the verge of bankruptcy because most people really don't care that much for satirical cartoons wither they feature Mohammad or the Pope or anyone else.

Millions of people across Europe took to the streets to protest the brutal slaying of men and woman, not in support of a satirical comic. But to protest against an 'evil' murderous rampage by people who do not believe in our freedom of expression. The saying 'Je Sous Chalie' is not a support of the comic, it's in support of the comics right to exist, right to say what they feel without fear. The right of everybody in Europe enjoys, they are saying 'I am no different.' It's not an attack on a comic, it's an attack on our way of life.

Does it rub you the wrong way? Does it insult you? So fucking what?! Sometimes things rub me the wrong way, or someone will say
 something truly idiotic and I will think; 'What a fucking idiot.' I might even argue with them and tell them what I think, but I'm not going to track them down and kill them. It is their right to their opinion even if it's not something I like or agree with.


As for that comic above being 'racist' of course it isn't, it's about Muslim extremists, that's what they usually look like! Turbans and scraggy beard are their hallmarks! How else would you depict them as a cartoon!? Do all Arabs look like that? Of course not!
I just dislike the double standards we have to deal with. I know its human nature to be biased and these people who probably take pride in being westerners (vs islam) only naturally twist it through their own glasses, but I hate it how any jewish joke is out of boundary but islam is freedom of expression.

My personal view is that its okay to redicule, and people who disagree should just develop thick skin. What I dont like is how there is a double standard in it and there's still a lot of things we wont be able to explore when doing so.

Honestly most of us would never purposefully try to offend a friend of ours or anyone close if something's sensetive. Yet offending a random croud seems to be okay without knowing any of them individually. Its just rude and like I said im okay with rude people existing, I just dont view it as something valuable and something we gotta view as something important in our society when its usually just used in a cowardly way, offending individuals whom they dont even know. That's why I say the terrorist attack and islam is where the focus should lie more than the guy who for some reason symbolizes freedom of speach now.

The reaction was dumb and those so called muslim terrorists deserved to pay for it. There's muslims who study the quran and learn to present themselves in a much better way, from what many assume a terroristic source.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV2KvWoIo40

The actual way the quran encourages muslims to react to these kind of situations.
-Dont be silent and reason your "thoughts".
-Engage in intellectual discourse
-dispel misconceptions

Very different from the idiots we keep seeing getting representation status by the media. I myself cant understand how it keeps happening. And honestly sometimes I cant believe it...


Anyway I apreciate reading all your views. Thanks
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 12:49:39 am by CrazyT »

Offline Sharky

  • *
  • Posts: 3882
  • Total Meseta: 44
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2015, 12:03:45 pm »
I don't think Jews escape satire anymore than anyone else. For example Mort, a reappearing Jewish character in the Family Guy cartoon is a pretty hilarious example of stereotypical Jewish Americans. Go check it out.


Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRZWN2lqDAc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lORtw7GhKag

and:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFeNLEnV8r4
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 12:10:52 pm by Sharky »
Made by SEGA

Offline CrazyT

  • *
  • Posts: 2787
  • Total Meseta: 100
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2015, 02:18:36 pm »
Yeah you're right. I actually watch a lot of those shows so weird how I overlooked that. Southpark is even worse.

I guess its particulur cases in which i think hebdo may have had some allegience to the faith or the country which represents it.

When do cartoons go too far though? Would a holocaust cartoon go too far?

Offline Aki-at

  • *
  • Posts: 3160
  • Total Meseta: 61
  • The Dragon
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2015, 02:26:42 pm »
David Cameron wants to shutdown WhatsApp in the UK and Theresa May wants to increase powers for our security services to be able to check emails and telephone calls.

As much as I do like being safe, I like having my civil liberties upheld more.

Offline MadeManG74

  • *
  • Posts: 5522
  • Total Meseta: 1326
  • Hot, Wild Vision
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2015, 03:04:32 pm »
David Cameron wants to shutdown WhatsApp in the UK and Theresa May wants to increase powers for our security services to be able to check emails and telephone calls.

As much as I do like being safe, I like having my civil liberties upheld more.

Why is WhatsApp targeted in particular?

Offline Sharky

  • *
  • Posts: 3882
  • Total Meseta: 44
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2015, 03:10:31 pm »

When do cartoons go too far though? Would a holocaust cartoon go too far?

I think it depends which country and how it is presented. There is a line between hate speeches and satire for example. The Charlie Hedbo comics are not really racist, they aren't promoting race hate, or violence against a certain type of people. The opposite, they're against it. Again, like Family guy, they have made fun of everybody equally, in fact really far, far less so than Family guy. When they draw a terrorist, they draw a stereotypical terrorist, not a stereotypical Arab.

When they pick on something like religion, which they do often... Well religion is just a concept, you believe in it or you don't and you're free to criticize or worship all you like. Or at least you should be. I'm not offended by people going to church every Sunday or the Jehovahs who come to my door once a month and give me propaganda leaflets. (which are always a good laugh for someone like me, hell I look forward to them.)
Made by SEGA

Offline MadeManG74

  • *
  • Posts: 5522
  • Total Meseta: 1326
  • Hot, Wild Vision
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2015, 03:57:41 pm »
I think it depends which country and how it is presented. There is a line between hate speeches and satire for example. The Charlie Hedbo comics are not really racist, they aren't promoting race hate, or violence against a certain type of people. The opposite, they're against it. Again, like Family guy, they have made fun of everybody equally, in fact really far, far less so than Family guy. When they draw a terrorist, they draw a stereotypical terrorist, not a stereotypical Arab.

When they pick on something like religion, which they do often... Well religion is just a concept, you believe in it or you don't and you're free to criticize or worship all you like. Or at least you should be. I'm not offended by people going to church every Sunday or the Jehovahs who come to my door once a month and give me propaganda leaflets. (which are always a good laugh for someone like me, hell I look forward to them.)

So you believe it's okay to insult somebody based on their beliefs, but not on their race?

Genuine question, not trolling.

Offline Aki-at

  • *
  • Posts: 3160
  • Total Meseta: 61
  • The Dragon
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2015, 07:19:12 pm »
Why is WhatsApp targeted in particular?

Because it's a service that provides a secure channel.

Offline Sharky

  • *
  • Posts: 3882
  • Total Meseta: 44
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2015, 08:41:35 pm »
So you believe it's okay to insult somebody based on their beliefs, but not on their race?

Genuine question, not trolling.

The line gets blurry at times but I see it like this.

Yes, I believe racially motivated insults are far worse than religious ones. Here's why, to attack a persons race is to attack their core being, their appearance, their family, their entire ethnicity and most importantly something they cannot change or have any control over. At least that rings true if we're talking about... 'true racism.' (A term I literally just coined to separate racism into two types from this point on. True and Stereotypical, allow me to explain...)

'True racism' is an insult on somebodies skin colour or features; nose, lips, hair, eye colour etc. Things people cannot change, real attributes of their race. Black face for example is 'True racism.'

'Stereotypical racism' is not really about race at all... It's misattributed to 'race' when really it a social issue, a product of their environment. Like upbringing and social background. For example, is it inherent that all white people can't dance? No, plenty of white people can dance. Is it inherent that all black people like rap music? Nope... Tons can't stand it! But there's no smoke without fire, right? We grow up in a certain environment and we act a certain way because of it. We're simply a product of our environment. Are black people more likely to be criminals? No, but they ARE more likely to grow up in poverty for many social reasons I wont get into and poverty breeds criminals, race is irrelevant. White people in poverty act exactly the same.


Now stereotypical 'racism' is open to satire. That is the kind you'll see on Family guy and such, in reality it's the same thing as national stereotyping... Like how we stereotype French people as lover of cheese and bread, or British people tea drinkers... I fucking love tea, got a cup as I write this! Or how if cats were from Australia they'd probably be called Wallarongadingobongas. It's environmental, it's not racism because we're multicultural but it's basically the exact same thing and again it's open to satire.


As for religion, well religion is a concept... It's an idea. I can't 'insult' an idea or a concept. It is wrong to say to someone 'you're an idiot for believing this.' I wouldn't do that, because calling someone an idiot IS an insult. But I think it's fair game for me to say 'I believe religion is idiotic, and here is why.' If someone feels insulted by that well tough shit, that's their choice.

Religion is at it's heart a theory, like any scientific theory. The only difference between religion as a theory and scientific theories is that science invites criticism-- After all, every hard fact is simply a theory that has never been proven wrong! It's a fact that paper is made from trees, but only because there is absolutely no reasonable theory that could prove that wrong. We all know that... That said, theoretically if a new theory was published tomorrow that disproved paper was made from trees, without a shadow of a doubt, science would accept that as the new truth with open arms. The sciences books would be rewritten and we'd all be like, WELL SHIT!

Religion is the opposite of that, religion is fixed. Religion is belief in a single idea that is unchanging. "Here is the holy book, everything in it is fact, no there is no room for debate, no there is no room for questions." Can't prove something? "That's why you have to have FAITH!" Something happens that doesn't seem in accordance with the scripture? "God works in mysterious ways!" Religion is blind faith in something that cannot be proven.... Or unproved, because; 'faith.'

In the past, and even today in some parts of the world, religion has such a strong strangle hold on society that questioning it leads to punishment; Prison, attack, execution and so on. In these societies there is no room for debate. Here in the West religion has faded and that's BECAUSE we're free to think for ourselves, to ask those important questions about religion which don't add up... We're also free to be any faith we choose, if we choose. And that is seen as a threat to those oppressive nations, they see directly what freedom does and they enjoy their absolute power!

You will notice a correlation between those places where religion is absolute and oppression. Oppression of women, gays, of the freedoms we have in the West and a reluctance to move forward. And it is those places that breed the terrorists. NOT because they are Muslim's... (You'll always see Muslims after any attack saying 'this is wrong Islam is a religion of peace.' And they firmly believe that.) No yet again it's a social and environmental issue. Terrorism isn't a Muslim issue it's a religious-environment problem, for lack of a better term. Without the freedom to think and speak and question their Religion, the environment is toxic. It breeds extremism, people brain washed where anything other than their religion is unfathomable. People who believe that in a society like ours where we ARE free to challenge religion we are the highest sinners and we should be killed for it. They are told this by their oppressive leaders.

And that is why I wouldn't just say it's okay for Charlie Hebdo, or Family Guy or ANYONE to Lampoon religion but it's damn well important!

And I am sorry that I just wrote a novel, haha. But I don't think it can be explained in anything less. I spent so long on this I might save it and post it on facebook lol.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 10:32:27 pm by Sharky »
Made by SEGA

Offline crackdude

  • *
  • Posts: 4256
  • Total Meseta: 64
  • Nintendo Bling
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2015, 05:08:43 am »
I agree with Sharky.
I have faith and a religion, so I'll just comment that not every religion is completely shut down from reality. Sometimes when some interpretation turns out to be wrong..well, it's just some theory that didn't turn out to be true. Some reason this way, and I think it's healthy.

Other religions, as you said, strangle the people into believing some interpretations of holy texts regardless of how non-sensical they are (even to OTHER people that believe in the same texts). It's very easy to point that out in the contrast between some Islamists, but that happens in Christian religions as well. Catholicism is a perfect example, although it has lost most of it's power, it sticks to this single ancient and (mostly) disprooven interpretation of the Bible and just rolls with it. It generates extremism as well.

All very fascinating, and scary.

PS:
I strongly believe that religion SHOULD be challenged!
Like any other theory, if it holds up by itself (i.e. without relying on the "you have to have faith" card) it's a credible and respectable belief. If not, well, then you're just waisting your time.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 05:13:07 am by crackdude »
SEG4GES

Offline MadeManG74

  • *
  • Posts: 5522
  • Total Meseta: 1326
  • Hot, Wild Vision
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #42 on: January 15, 2015, 01:03:17 pm »
NOTE: This post probably comes off as argumentative or something but it's not my intention. I do refer to another post in another thread that got my goat, but I try to explain all my points without getting butthurt.

So yeah, not attacking anyone
-------------

Catholicism is a perfect example, although it has lost most of it's power, it sticks to this single ancient and (mostly) disprooven interpretation of the Bible and just rolls with it. It generates extremism as well.

I have to disagree, Catholocism is probably one of the more progressive branches of Christianity, especially after Vatican II. The Catholic Church believes in evolution for example, and have an Academy of Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences).

Don't forget that the go-to 'Christian Extremists' that everyone points to, the KKK, actually hate the Catholic Church. I don't think it's fair to say that Catholicism is what breeds extremism.

Quote from: sharky
Now stereotypical 'racism' is open to satire. That is the kind you'll see on Family guy and such, in reality it's the same thing as national stereotyping... Like how we stereotype French people as lover of cheese and bread, or British people tea drinkers... I fucking love tea, got a cup as I write this! Or how if cats were from Australia they'd probably be called Wallarongadingobongas. It's environmental, it's not racism because we're multicultural but it's basically the exact same thing and again it's open to satire.

But what if I said that British people were genocidal, because of things like the Irish Famine and their invention of concentration camps? Is that stereotypical racism for example? As you said I think it's a blurry line. It's easier to see a distinction when it's something light like music preference, but doesn't this also count as not 'True Racism'?

Quote
As for religion, well religion is a concept... It's an idea. I can't 'insult' an idea or a concept. It is wrong to say to someone 'you're an idiot for believing this.' I wouldn't do that, because calling someone an idiot IS an insult. But I think it's fair game for me to say 'I believe religion is idiotic, and here is why.' If someone feels insulted by that well tough shit, that's their choice.

That's fine, but if you want to say 'religion is idiotic and here is why' and then just make up something insulting, isn't that a direct insult to the followers?

I'm going to call out again the other thread, where you basically said that Muslims can't eat pork due to 'Mohammed spinning in a circle and doing a dance'. While you didn't directly say "Muslims are all idiots", by suggesting that their chosen belief is so asinine aren't you just calling them idiots?

By comparison if you were proud of British Culture, and I said "Just a shame that British Culture mandates to kill black people and have horrible teeth!", I'm not insulting YOU, but aren't I just doing it by proxy by insulting your culture/belief with some fictional reasons I made up?

(Fun Fact: British People actually have amongst the best dental Hygiene in Europe.)

Quote
Religion is at it's heart a theory, like any scientific theory. The only difference between religion as a theory and scientific theories is that science invites criticism-- After all, every hard fact is simply a theory that has never been proven wrong! It's a fact that paper is made from trees, but only because there is absolutely no reasonable theory that could prove that wrong. We all know that... That said, theoretically if a new theory was published tomorrow that disproved paper was made from trees, without a shadow of a doubt, science would accept that as the new truth with open arms. The sciences books would be rewritten and we'd all be like, WELL SHIT!

Religion is the opposite of that, religion is fixed. Religion is belief in a single idea that is unchanging. "Here is the holy book, everything in it is fact, no there is no room for debate, no there is no room for questions." Can't prove something? "That's why you have to have FAITH!" Something happens that doesn't seem in accordance with the scripture? "God works in mysterious ways!" Religion is blind faith in something that cannot be proven.... Or unproved, because; 'faith.'

As I said above, this simply isn't true.

First of all, not all religions are the same.

Some religions are fundamentalist and refuse to deviate from their written word to the letter. Others challenge that and interpret it differently. Again, the Catholic Church believes in evolution, they don't believe that 'the world was made in exactly 7 days and dinosaur bones are the devil's tricks'. Catholic Schools teach their students evolution.

Quote
Religion is at it's heart a theory, like any scientific theory. The only difference between religion as a theory and scientific theories is that science invites criticism-- After all, every hard fact is simply a theory that has never been proven wrong! It's a fact that paper is made from trees, but only because there is absolutely no reasonable theory that could prove that wrong. We all know that... That said, theoretically if a new theory was published tomorrow that disproved paper was made from trees, without a shadow of a doubt, science would accept that as the new truth with open arms. The sciences books would be rewritten and we'd all be like, WELL SHIT!

Small point, but I think you have this the other way around. I think the burden is to prove a theory rather than not be able to dis-prove it. Otherwise you get into the flying spaghetti monster nonsense, where you can say it's fact that the Spaghetti monster exists because it can't be disproven.

As I said above, most religions will accept scientific discoveries, I don't know where this idea comes from that they all ignore science.

Quote
In the past, and even today in some parts of the world, religion has such a strong strangle hold on society that questioning it leads to punishment; Prison, attack, execution and so on. In these societies there is no room for debate. Here in the West religion has faded and that's BECAUSE we're free to think for ourselves, to ask those important questions about religion which don't add up... We're also free to be any faith we choose, if we choose. And that is seen as a threat to those oppressive nations, they see directly what freedom does and they enjoy their absolute power!

A big part of this is down to a Christian/Western belief that Church and State should be seperate (EG: "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar..."). In Europe the sciences were relatively unimpeded compared to other cultures, for example, the Ottoman Empire, that believed that Religion and the State were inseparable.

Having said that, it's also worth noting that the Church in Europe was one of the only bastions of learning and eduction during the Dark Ages. Without it, much knowledge would have been lost. It was the church who were making records, translations of texts, preserving literature and setting up universities around Europe (University of Paris and Cambridge for example).

Religion can be used to oppress people, no doubt, but it's not accurate to say that about all religions impede progress or shun learning in favour of blind faith.

Quote
You will notice a correlation between those places where religion is absolute and oppression. Oppression of women, gays, of the freedoms we have in the West and a reluctance to move forward. And it is those places that breed the terrorists.

Considering that the shooters were both French born nationals, and even looking at the 2005 London Bombings, three of the bombers were born in the UK, one born in Jamaica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#Bombers), I don't think that's accurate.

I think it's this particular brand of religion that's causing it. Not all of Islam, but this particular type of fundamentalist/radical teaching is what's causing it.

Offline MadeManG74

  • *
  • Posts: 5522
  • Total Meseta: 1326
  • Hot, Wild Vision

Offline crackdude

  • *
  • Posts: 4256
  • Total Meseta: 64
  • Nintendo Bling
Re: Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)
« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2015, 06:06:07 pm »
"The Catholic Church believes in evolution for example"
And you assume that's progressive because evolution is a fact....? It's not factual, it is used as interpretation. Personally I think it's a shit interpretation, but it's in their right and there's nothing wrong with that.

But when it comes to the basic beliefs like soul's immortality, the holy trinity, the saints, etc. It clearly contradicts the bible itself. It's an extremist religion because (knowingly) lies about the contents of holy texts for it's own benefit (the concept of hell worked wonders for hundreds of years and millions of dollarz, even though the bible states multiple times that the dead are just...dead ).

Not only that, the Catholic Church was deeply involved in the roots of Nazism and countless wars and "holy crusades" throughout the last almost two thousand years
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 06:07:59 pm by crackdude »
SEG4GES