1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

12 killed in shooting at satirical newspaper office in Paris

Discussion in 'Serious' started by rainbowbridge, 7 Jan 2015.

  1. Landy_Ed

    Landy_Ed Combat Novice

    Joined:
    6 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,428
    Likes Received:
    39
    Shirty, if they had printed a strip, side by side of the various religions, depicting a figurehead of that religion at a pulpit getting oral from a someone -male/female/child/animal/green martian hiding inside the pulpit (like that old Police Academy sketch) while they preach to their congregation that they should be abstinent, I would get it. The fun poking is at the hypocrisy, the alleged lie.

    Satire is to provoke thought (well, I thought so anyway), not anger. What Hebdo have done with this latest issue is an act of defiance.
    Then again, being British, what do I know of French rationale? I'm reminded of that Red Dwarf exchange in series 1 :
    Holly: Jean-Paul Sartre said Hell was being locked forever in a room with your friends.
    Lister: Holly, all his mates were French!
     
  2. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,403
    Likes Received:
    1,798
    And thus we have a stand-off, because we can't let go of the conviction of our faith either.

    As I said: they are learning. Are we?
     
  3. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,212
    Likes Received:
    157
    Perhaps Nexxo would have a point before incidents like the Danish cartoonist was killed and Charlie Hebdo occurred (and most likely many other incidents I'm not aware of). But since they have occurred, refusing to cause any more offence to muslims at this stage only shows that the terrorism works which has already been pointed out. But it also provides a path to further escalation. Non-mulslism capitulated when they were terrorised about a drawing. Let's terrorise them about pork and shoot up some butcher shops.

    What I feel is more important here is that capitulating also means that one religion is determining the actions of others outside that religion. You can paint it as the moral high ground all you want. But that is something which should never be tolerated. I'm quite happy for religious people to have their songs and dances and telepathy sessions. But never force me to join in.
     
  4. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    You're going to have to explain that one to me, why should it be society that decides what incitement is ?
    Isn't that kind of what happens with common law ? In so much as the judges decide on a case by case basis.

    The thing is satire isn't used just so people can show how sardonically witty and louche they are, it's used to draw attention to something that is seen as wrong in a supposedly witty fashion.

    Because that's what satire is...
    "Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society."

    Is that not what we are doing, are we not exercising tolerance ? I would argue that we are.
    I dare say there were many people that felt angry enough to seek vengeance after the type of incidents in Paris, yet they didn't.

    They are not published in defiance, they are published as constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon, that's what satire is.

    What is it you suggest there is to learn ?
    If it's that we should self regulate our expression then I'm with you on that, but the problem is in a free society there are always going to be people that do, or say things you don't like. The answer isn't to use physical violence to make them stop, there are other less violent ways to get your point of view across.
     
  5. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,403
    Likes Received:
    1,798
    You need to make a separation between the terrorists and Muslims. How we respond to this terrorist action does not only send a message to terrorists, but also to Muslims, as indeed the terrorist action was designed to send a message to not just us, but also to Muslims.

    As I said before, compliance reinforces terrorism, but defiance does so as well. So we have to consider: what do we want to achieve?

    That terrorism won't work, of course. OK: what do terrorists want to achieve? To create an antagonistic schism between non-Muslims and Muslims; to drive moderate Muslims into the arms of extremists by turning us against them, and to escalate things into an all-out war. The timing of this terrorist attack is not coincidental. Now moderate Muslims have made it clear to terrorists that they're not playing that game. What do we do?

    I am minded of the reaction of the US to 9/11. After this attack, the whole world was stunned. Palestine, Iran, Libya: some of the most hard-core Arab opponents of the US fell over themselves to distance themselves from this terrorist attack, to condemn it and to offer unconditional cooperation with the US to bring them to justice. What did the US do? It pissed this unprecedented wave of diplomatic goodwill away by going full retard on Afghanistan and Iraq, and along the way aligning Iran with the "Axis of Evil". A unique opportunity to change East-West relations for the better was tragically wasted.

    Then shouldn't the judges, on behalf of society, decide what constitutes freedom of speech? I argue that there is no distinction between voicing opinion and incitement. So I propose we threat these two the same.

    Just because we're not killing people doesn't make us tolerant. That's not what tolerance means.

    I would argue that it is not constructive.

    I would go further: there are wiser ways to get our point of view across. Ones that reinforces the views and behaviour of Muslims that have stood by us with regards to this terrorist action, and apart from the terrorists. Let's not defiantly cut off our nose to spite our own face.

    Without another wall-of-text about psychology, it is a bit difficult to summarise my thinking but basically: psychological reactance theory (commonly called "reverse psychology") and transactional analysis both state that compliance and defiance are two sides of the same coin. You are acting in response to an imposition, not as a free agent of your own motivations. To not play the terrorists' game, we need to continue acting as free agents.

    At the moment only the moderate Muslims are doing that. They are the only ones who are demonstrating wisdom and learning right now. We aren't, and that does not sit well with me.
     
    Last edited: 15 Jan 2015
  6. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    No they shouldn't.
    Making a judgment on whether someone persuaded, encouraged, instigated, pressured, or threatened someone to commit a crime is very different from making a judgment on what someone said, or if someone is offended by what they said. One is an inchoate offence, a crime, the other is not or rather was not.

    Like many things tolerance is a sliding scale, at one end we have people killing anyone they can't tolerate, at the other we have people so tolerant of others that they are willing to change their way of life to accommodate the views of everyone over their own.

    Then do what people do when they don't agree with something, ignore it, don't buy it (by all accounts Charlie Hebdo wasn't selling very well before these events), write a strongly worded letter, organise a protest.
    That's how we resolve disagreements in a "free" society, we don't go bash someones face in or go around shooting people because we don't like what they've said or done.

    That's the beauty of living in a so called "free" society, if we think there is a better way we can put those thoughts into words without fear of being physically punished, if people don't agree with our better way they can tell us, ignore us, etc, etc.

    If only the moderate Muslims views could be heard over the deafening noise made by the extremists, if it wasn't for the extremists the moderates could possible hold protests outside Charlie Hebdo without being associated with the extremists.

    Are we not in a smiliar situation as the one that you and I discussed in the GamerGate thread ? How can the moderates get their view across when there are people willing to go to extremes on their behalf.

    I'm still unclear as to what it is that you're expecting us to learn from this.
     
    Last edited: 15 Jan 2015
  7. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,403
    Likes Received:
    1,798
    From a legal point of view you are correct. From a psychological point of view I argue that there is no difference between voicing opinion and incitement.

    No, that's compliance. Tolerance is the ability or willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with. You don't feel the need to go against it, nor do you feel the need to go with it.

    Sorry, I should have said that in this case (i.e. the publication of another Mohammed cartoon after the terrorist attack) it is not constructive.

    There are (at least) three parties involved in this drama: the terrorists, the Muslims and the non-Muslims. The terrorist action was a communication not just towards us non-Muslims, but also towards Muslims. Our response therefore inevitably is a communication not just towards the terrorists, but also towards Muslims.

    So what do we want to criticise? Surely the act of terrorism, or the idea that it is OK to wish harm on others for disrespecting or disagreeing with your beliefs (whatever they are). There are many ways a cartoon can do that without resorting to the same old tired and lazy trope of let's-make-fun-of-Mohammed, which seems to me an implicit statement that we lump the Muslims and terrorists together. Thus playing right into the extremists' hands.

    By distancing themselves from the actions of the extremists. Which is what the Muslims are doing. Now how are we responding to that? Let's mock their prophet some more to prove that the terrorists won't win!

    That defiance is just the flipside of compliance; that it is not just about us vs the terrorists but that we also have to consider the people who get caught in the middle of this (parallels with "If you're not with us, you're against us" and the millions of Afghans and Iraqi killed or dispossessed in the crossfire of our invasions come to mind). That wisdom is not just going against but rising above. That there are so many different ways Charlie Hebdo could have challenged terrorism without offending the moderate Muslims who wish to stand with us rather than with the extremists.
     
    Last edited: 15 Jan 2015
  8. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    6,616
    Likes Received:
    811
    Society gives in to religious demands all the time, just take the restrictions on abortions in Northern Ireland for example, who demanded them?

    Yep you guessed it, the church.

    Or related to the Paris shooting, some newspaper in Israel edited Merkel out of a picture from when she went to Paris, why? So as to not upset ultra conservative religious nutjobs who can't handle pictures of a woman in a leadership position.

    So where exactly do you draw the line on which demands from anyone who can yell: "but religion" to give in to?
     
  9. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Even from a psychological point of view they are different, one's a personal view in a similar manner as liking the color blue, or apples. The other is to encourage, urge on, or prompt to action someone else.

    I disagree, compliance is cooperation or obedience often imposed by someone else, tolerance is a personal, fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from one's own.
    Tolerance is something we practice in a free society, compliance is something that people living in the lands of ISIS practice due to fear.

    It's not the job of non-Muslims to criticise, i would argue that non-Muslims don't have enough knowledge to address the concerns of the extremists, in a similar fashion as it's not the job of non-Psychologist to criticise the practices of Psychologist because they probably don't understand why they do some of the things they do.

    Have they not been constructive by depicting Mohammed shedding a tear over the deaths of people in his name ? Is not one Muslims going to look at that and think maybe killing people is not the answer.

    As you said in the GamerGate thread though the moderates are forever tainted by the actions of the extremists are they not ?

    Even if the cartoon is seen as mocking the prophet some more to prove that the terrorists won't win, is that so wrong ? We done the same when Hitler bomb London to show we won't be curtailed, that he wouldn't change our lives, that no matter what we wouldn't capitulate.


    Such as taking up arms and killing some non Charlie Hebdo readers ?
    From my perspective they did rise above, well unless you consider drawing a cartoon the equivalent of killing 12 people.

    It would seem the extremists disagree though...
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Ending Credits

    Ending Credits Bunned

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    240
    Some things we mock because they deserve to be mocked, some things we mock because they're fun to mock, some things we mock because they're easy to mock: Embrace the first and enjoy the second in moderation. Avoid the third.

    For me, the original cartoons probably fall into the second, and perhaps first category (but that's clearly subjective). Now I get the feeling that things are sliding into the third category where it's the act of being inflammatory which is the primary source that the humor is derived from. Although, it's not CH in particular I get that impression from.
     
  11. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,212
    Likes Received:
    157
    The reason there is little distinction between muslims and terrorists in my previous post is not because I think muslims are all terrorists. but because what offends the muslim population as a whole (more or less) is what offends the terrorists and motivates their actions. The source of offence is the same for both groups, its just the reaction and outcomes that are different.

    What do we want to achieve? How about: I respect your right to hold your beliefs. I do not respect your beliefs. Do not subjugate me to your belief system. How can that be transmitted in a non-escalating warm and fuzzy way?
     
  12. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,403
    Likes Received:
    1,798
    Psychologically you cannot make anyone think, feel or do anything. They decide (consciously or subconsciously) whether they do or don't. So there is no difference between opinion "I don't like him", opinion "I think he should be killed" and opinion "I think you should kill him".

    Compliance does not necessarily involve coercion. But we digress.

    Sorry, I'm lost now. Didn't you say that cartoons were a way of challenging or criticising an issue (post #187: "Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism..."? And are we not criticising terrorism (i.e. not the concerns of extremists, but their behaviour)?

    And of course people can, and do criticise the practices of psychologists, and I'm very happy for them to. Our actions should be able to bear scrutiny (and just to reassure you: psychologists almost never kill anybody :p).

    Many Muslims don't seem to think so. They seem to experience it as a slap in the face just when they chose to stand by us. And the message is in the eye of the beholder.

    No, I said that the GamerGate label is tainted, and only until it distances themselves from the actions of the extremists.

    That is a totally different scenario. We didn't have a German population who wished to align itself with us against Hitler. If there had been, would it have been productive to mock all Germans just to try and piss off Hitler?

    Such as mocking terrorism (see picture in your post, for instance), not the Muslim prophet.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that Mohammed can never be mocked. But terrorists killed twelve people ostensibly for that reason: they are deliberately trying to conflate their extremism with Islam. Now any right-thinking Muslim knows that is BS, and thus they are not rising to the bait. We have to call BS on that too. This is not about Islam, or Mohammed, or jokes about either; this is about extremism: the belief that it's OK to kill people for not believing what you believe. We have to make sure that we don't collude with their conflation.
     
    Last edited: 15 Jan 2015
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,403
    Likes Received:
    1,798
    I would disagree that there is that much ideological similarity between Muslims and Islamic extremists, but just to go with that presupposition: so what do we wish to challenge? What Muslims feel offended about or the way that extremists react to feeling offended?

    By mocking terrorism (which is against the right to hold different beliefs), not Islam (which is a belief). In this scenario, where we and Muslims alike want to make a clear distinction between Muslims and terrorists, it is important to make a clear who and what you are challenging.

    Well put.
     
    Last edited: 15 Jan 2015
  14. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Back. Ugh, it's hard to read and not write when the topic is so interesting and hotly debated!

    I kinda agree with ending credits with the mockery breakdown, but I feel the spectrum of reasons can be expanded if we think more about it. Also I do not think printing images of the Prophet falls into the first or second, however I realise that other people may think it does. Add a fourth category called 'exciting to mock'.

    Deserve to be mocked? Certainly not.

    Fun to mock? I see the images from the other persons side, in this case Muslims, and it's not funny. The images are clearly not comedy (har har). The images are meant to annoy Muslims, and that is what some people are seeing as funny. They see mocking Muslims as funny. That is not funny. That is childish humour and annoying. For me. I don't like trolls. I find it genuinely worrying when a business can troll a religion.

    Easy to mock? Certainly is easy to mock everything.

    Exciting to mock? I suppose mocking can be encompassed by 'exciting'. Anything that stimulates us with hormones is exciting and mocking something we know is a sensitive subject releases the hormones. But if a person see a couple walking down a street and the wife is over-weight, is the person going to walk up to them and tell her to stop eating Burger King? I very much doubt it. Are the people who hijack Facebook pages of kids who commit suicide to post 'exciting' mockery going to knock on the door of the parents and give the message personally? Heh.

    Exciting is not funny. I think people should find better ways to stimulate themselves. I can't comprehend how a number of people can spend their time finding ways to upset others.

    An example of what I find as funny satire is Ian Hislop and Private Eye and Mark Thomas. They (especially Thomas) don't use satire as an excuse to offend a population, they use it to shame people and corporations.
     
  15. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    If there is not then how do psychologists do there job ? Is that not changing the way a person perceives what is happening to them, how do victims of torture, as you described in the CIA Torture Report released thread, "Transformation: to break a person down, rebuild them into what you want them to be. Make them a convert to your cause, an instrument for your purposes, a puppet confessing whatever you want the public to see them confess. Torture is a political tool."

    Is that not making a person think differently, act differently ?

    I would say "we" are offering constructive social criticism to whom ever will listen, that doesn't necessarily mean it's targeted at the extreme end of that particular society. In fact from a discussion i heard on This Week most Muslims took the CH cartoons in the manner they were intended as a satirical joke, humorous, funny.

    OK now you have me worried, "almost never". :worried:

    Going on what Shazia Mirza said on This Week last night most Muslims in fact don't take offence.

    So is not the same true for Islam and Muslims ?

    I would say yes.
    If there was a German population who wished to align itself with us against Hitler then i dare say they would have the acumen to know it's not directed at them.

    I would say satire and mockery are two different things, one is to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision. The other uses irony, sarcasm, ridicule, it's a fine line between the two and one that possibly we don't always get right, but that's the idea of free speech, if someone crosses that line you tell them they have gone to far, you don't kill them.

    I disagree that this is about Mohammed, Islam, Muslims, jokes, or extremists, this is about our liberties, our freedoms, this is about being able to say and do what you want (within the law), and for people to take offence at what people say or do without reverting to our base animal instincts of wanting to cause harm to people that offend us.

    It's about live and let live.
     
  16. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,403
    Likes Received:
    1,798
    That is an entirely different process than telling someone "You should do this" (which psychologists never do, BTW; they don't change people; they help people change themselves). If by application of physical methods you disrupt someone's physical and hence neuropsychological functioning, you can mess with their malfunctioning brains. But that is not the same as suggesting or encouraging someone to think, feel or do something.

    It is good to know that they are being wise, if nobody else is.

    Yup, and we are seeing that: Muslim leaders have been disavowing Al-Qaida, ISIS and assorted terrorists. So has the Muslim population in general.

    Like we presumed that the Afghans and Iraqi would know that we are their friends, with their best interests at heart? That seems not to have worked out so well.

    How does the latest cartoon convey that?
     
  17. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Who are we to dictate to people how they should react to our arrogance of their thoughts and feelings?

    If it were about live and let live we would never get caught up in wars (and debates like this) all the time. We get governments removed, then we get angry when a terrorist blows something up. We steal territory, then we get angry when a terrorist blows something up. We provide arms to opposition leaders, then we get angry when a terrorist blows something up.

    How about WE start by living and letting live, rather than being annoying neighbours?
     
  18. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Is anyone telling them to do this ?
    We are fairly certain Bin Laden told those involved in 9/11 to do what they done (i think) but do we know the other attackers were told "You should do this" ? If as you suggest people can't be told to do something then why do we go after Imams that preach extremist view ?

    And some don't, some excuse those actions.

    Sending ground troops to kill people is very different than satire, or cartoons.

    Don't you consider a cartoon of the Prophet with the words "all is forgiven" above him, and "We love Charlie" written bellow is an embodiment of live and let live.

    Sorry but who is dictating how someone should react to our arrogance of their thoughts and feelings ?
    Is not the reason we get caught up in wars because people are not allowing others to live their lives as each sees fit ?
     
    Last edited: 16 Jan 2015
  19. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,403
    Likes Received:
    1,798
    That's a whole other debate. We were talking about the psychological perspective on whether voicing opinion and incitement are any different.

    The reason that we go after extremist Imams is because of the legal framework defining incitement as a crime. Personally I have argued all along that we shouldn't worry so much about what those Imams preach as why some people choose to listen to them. But that is, of course, a psychological perspective.

    Indeed. And they get lumped with the extremists.

    The thought behind it is the same. "Surely they understand that it's aimed at the bad guys? Surely they understand that we don't mean them?" Well, if they feel caught in the crossfire they won't.

    We need to understand that for us it is just a cartoon. For them it's ridicule of their prophet --an abstract idea that they feel as strongly about as we do about freedom of speech.

    It doesn't matter what you and I think. It matters what Muslims decide to make of it. We cannot control what other people think, feel and do, remember? Now of course how Muslims decide to think and feel and act in response to this cartoon is entirely up to them. At the same time we have to ask ourselves what we would like them to think and feel and do, and whether this cartoon is likely to achieve that.

    The reasons for our multiple interventions in the Middle East going back as far as the days of Empire are complex, and worth a whole thread of their own. But the tl;dr version is: the reason we get caught up in those wars has nothing to do with allowing others to live their lives as they see fit. Quite the opposite.
     
    Last edited: 16 Jan 2015
  20. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Well from a psychological perspective you would know better than i, the problem is we don't run society based on psychology we simple black and white rules that govern how things run.

    I would tend to agree that we should address the reasons why some people choose to listen to them.
    The problem with that is there would be a whole lot of people that may fall into whatever reasons we came up with, that's even if we could come to a consensus as to what those reasons are.

    I would suggests that they don't, an extremists is someone who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, the problem is defining what the norm is. If there are 10 extremists and 9 moderates then the norm is no longer where it used to be, if you catch my drift.

    It's not the thought that is being debated with the greatest respect, it's the action, the killing of people or the drawing of cartoons that maybe seen as ridiculing their prophet.

    I still disagree that people can't be made to think, feel and do what someone else decides.
    We may not be able to directly effect what someone thinks, feels and does, but we can create an environment where the desired outcome is more likely.

    Sorry that was directed at forum_user and his claims that we are dictating to people how they should react, as in how did we dictate to Europe how they should live after WWI-II, how did we dictate to Iraq how they should live.

    Have we not allowed people to govern their own affairs as long as it doesn't involve violence.
     

Share This Page