A Beheading In France

[Terminal Blue]

In that Terminal Blue is insinuating that "white French" are the group that isn't allowed to be offended, posted on a thread that's sparked about an Islamist committing murder after being offended.

The specific point here is about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, including one that is a deliberate insult to the religious sensibilities of the Muslim population, being projected onto a government building, and the general perception (well evidenced in this thread, but also in the widespread approval for this gesture) that this is a good thing, that it's necessary to defend free speech against limitation by religious sensibilities.

And if you view that as a completely apolitical gesture, as merely offence for the sake of offence, then I can see the point. As someone who would have been burned alive had they been born a few centuries earlier, I'm not exactly a giant fan of pandering to religious sensibilities.

However, it's not an apolitical gesture. The fact that it's not a apolitical gesture should be obvious. Firstly, because it's literally a government building, and secondly, because.. well.. maybe I can show this visually.

Spoiler: Pretty horrible anti-Semitic cartoon

Now, we all know what this cartoon means, right? Probably wouldn't be very happy with projecting that onto a government building. But wait, I think I can fix it..

Spoiler: This doesn't actually fix it

There. Now as you can see it's completely fine. It's not a political attack on a widely hated minority, it's an important and necessary attack on religious sensibilities with no political implications at all. This image is no longer offensive. In fact, this image represents freedom in an entirely neutral and apolitical fashion, and if you think it's offensive then you hate freedom. It is your civic duty as a free person not to be offended by this image, otherwise the terrorists win.

When I talk about the right to be offended, this is what I mean. Attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion may be an attack on religious sensibilities, but it's also a deliberate and political attack on a real minority whose position in French society is actually quite precarious. It is, in effect, demanding that that minority prove their right to exist by not getting offended when subject to deliberate provocation, while at the same time construing any resistance or expression of offence as proof of some fundamental barbarism and unworthiness of protection. There is no way for a Muslim, even in the most moderate terms, to object to the deliberate attack on their religion. There is no right to be offended, because any offence at all will immediately be construed as proof that a person has no right to protection from offence. Catch 22.

And again, if this was applied universally, it would be horrible and mean spirited, it would be the mark of a fundamentally cruel and hateful society, but it would at least be consistent. But again, this is a country where a woman wearing the wrong kind of bathing suit on a public beach is an assault to public morals and grounds for religious offence.

Do the math on that one.

 

[Trunkage]

Most cancel culture is, it just often has delusions of grandeur.

I remember a decade ago people were calling out Harris for just going for the insult and not actually teaching anyone anything. Making people the butt of a joke isn't actually very persuasive

Look at the Golden One, ThunderFoot, Shapiro, etc who were inspired by the way he argued

 

[Hawki]

The specific point here is about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, including one that is a deliberate insult to the religious sensibilities of the Muslim population, being projected onto a government building, and the general perception (well evidenced in this thread, but also in the widespread approval for this gesture) that this is a good thing, that it's necessary to defend free speech against limitation by religious sensibilities.

I've already stated that I'm iffy about the image projections. The image being displayed in class wasn't done for the sake of mere offence (even if it was, wouldn't justify murder). Reason I'm iffy about it is that it's clearly getting into a tit-for-tat, that's already had a stabbing.

However, it's not an apolitical gesture. The fact that it's not a apolitical gesture should be obvious. Firstly, because it's literally a government building, and secondly, because.. well.. maybe I can show this visually.

Spoiler: Pretty horrible anti-Semitic cartoon

View attachment 1292

Now, we all know what this cartoon means, right? Probably wouldn't be very happy with projecting that onto a government building. But wait, I think I can fix it..

Spoiler: This doesn't actually fix it

View attachment 1293

There. Now as you can see it's completely fine. It's not a political attack on a widely hated minority, it's an important and necessary attack on religious sensibilities with no political implications at all. This image is no longer offensive. In fact, this image represents freedom in an entirely neutral and apolitical fashion, and if you think it's offensive then you hate freedom. It is your civic duty as a free person not to be offended by this image, otherwise the terrorists win.

First, I had to squint and see that - my first thought that that was an Arab stereotype, before a Jewish one.

But even then, this has been shifted from the classroom depiction to the image projection. And even if it was, it's not anyone's duty to "(not) be offended." In of itself, it's not anyone's duty to do anything. Simply ask the question as to whether religions are above critique/parody/insult, and if not, why?

When I talk about the right to be offended, this is what I mean. Attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion may be an attack on religious sensibilities, but it's also a deliberate and political attack on a real minority whose position in French society is actually quite precarious. It is, in effect, demanding that that minority prove their right to exist by not getting offended when subject to deliberate provocation, while at the same time construing any resistance or expression of offence as proof of some fundamental barbarism and unworthiness of protection. There is no way for a Muslim, even in the most moderate terms, to object to the deliberate attack on their religion. There is no right to be offended, because any offence at all will immediately be construed as proof that a person has no right to protection from offence. Catch 22.

This isn't a question of being offended, it's a question of action.

There's nothing wrong about being offended. Not in of itself. People take offence at things all the time, and yes, this would include religion. If we wind back to the original CH and we read headlines such as "Muslims offended at depiction of prophet," then that wouldn't really be news. Except that isn't what happened. What happened was people breaking into the offices and shooting members of the staff. And this isn't really an isolated pattern of behaviour - remember the Satanic Verses controversy? Far as I'm aware, that fatwah's still out there. Also, various individuals have had to take police protection due to their criticism of Islam - Ayaan Hirsi Ali for instance. All religions have their nutters, but there's a strain in Islam that seems particuarly reactionary. Let's just say that there's a reason that South Park, for instance, can have a Jesus parody over multiple episodes without any major issue, but had to censor Muhammad. Even when they dedicated an entire episode to mocking Scientology, while it offended Chef's voice actor, there weren't any Scientologists marching in the streets shouting "death to those who insult Lord Zenu."

So no, I don't care if you get offended. I care if you translate that offence into destructive action.

And again, if this was applied universally, it would be horrible and mean spirited, it would be the mark of a fundamentally cruel and hateful society, but it would at least be consistent. But again, this is a country where a woman wearing the wrong kind of bathing suit on a public beach is an assault to public morals and grounds for religious offence.

Do the math on that one.

I'm not a fan of the law, but it was consistent in banning religous symbols from display. So simiarly, no crosses.

How many shootings/beheadings have been done by Christians in France recently?

 

[Agema]

How many shootings/beheadings have been done by Christians in France recently?

Whilst there's truth in there, I cannot help but feel that's a very dangerous oversimplification because the issue is not simply one of religion. It cuts across class, race, culture and much more. Terminal Blue really is right to say there's a very real difference between offending the poor, weak, vulnerable and desperate, and the secure, wealthy, and powerful. That's even without going into individual factors.

One might point out for instance that many further/far right groups including parties such as the Rassemblement National, PiS and Golden Dawn clearly embrace the traditional national religion as a key pillar of their party and identity... and they kill and assault people.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

The biggest issue with that question is there's no particular need to compare to decide how one should act yet he acts like it somehow answers anything. It's not particularly difficult to just say hey people shouldn't pull that shit.

Also 'consistent' is such an atrocious take. It's targeted such that it will affect one particular group more

 

[Trunkage]

Huh. Maybe you can have too much Sam Harris.

He had Charles Murray on his podcast saying how bad it was he was cancelled in the 90s. Then he went through Murray’s data from the 90s and said something like ‘the liberals need to understand that IQ is genetic. There just is a difference of IQ between the races.’ Which is a bit rich as Murray took schooling results of apartheid South Africa as proof of Africans having a lower IQ.

Now this is probably paraphrased because it happened a couple of years ago. Remembering the exact words he said is a tall order, And I’m very willing to say I’m biased against him before any of Muslims or race IQ stuff because I started think his toxic attitude to people isn’t helping.

I don’t think he’s made comments on the second part of Murray’s work. It’s similar to trickle down economics but for IQ. Spend all the money on smart people as spending on the not so smart is a waste economically. Also keep in mind that for Murray, IQ is inherited and you can’t improve. Im not as confident in saying this due to My memory but I think Harris agree this last statement.

So, not as bad as some race realists out there. I don’t listen to him anymore so I don’t know how knowing someone‘s IQ is important or how that effects society and policies in general

 

[CM156]

There is no way for a Muslim, even in the most moderate terms, to object to the deliberate attack on their religion

"We find these cartoons to be offensive and tasteless, however the artists are within their legal rights to produce them. We have no further comment at this time."

This image is no longer offensive. In fact, this image represents freedom in an entirely neutral and apolitical fashion, and if you think it's offensive then you hate freedom. It is your civic duty as a free person not to be offended by this image, otherwise the terrorists win.

Since when is being offensive a bad thing? And why is being offended a bad thing? Perhaps we should teach people to internally reflect when they find themselves offended. Take it as an opportunity to critically reflect on their values and why they hold them.

Also: There's a difference between saying "X group isn't allowed to be offended" and "Members of X group are not allowed to use their offense as an explanation/justification/excuse for violent action."

I get what you're trying to do here, I really do. Nuance is important. Hell, that's basically the motto of my profession. But that nuance becomes hard to argue when we're dealing with people who've been killed over cartoons.

Terminal Blue really is right to say there's a very real difference between offending the poor, weak, vulnerable and desperate, and the secure, wealthy, and powerful.

Poverty, frailty, and vulnerability do not and should not immunize someone from having their beliefs scrutinized, lampooned, or attacked. People have rights. Ideas and beliefs do not.

One might point out for instance that many further/far right groups including parties such as the Rassemblement National, PiS and Golden Dawn clearly embrace the traditional national religion as a key pillar of their party and identity... and they kill and assault people.

Isn't the leader of Golden Dawn going to jail? You know, for running his party as a criminal gang?

 

[Hawki]

Whilst there's truth in there, I cannot help but feel that's a very dangerous oversimplification because the issue is not simply one of religion. It cuts across class, race, culture and much more. Terminal Blue really is right to say there's a very real difference between offending the poor, weak, vulnerable and desperate, and the secure, wealthy, and powerful. That's even without going into individual factors.

I'm aware of the concept of punching up vs. punching down, but I have limited tolerance for it as an excuse for saying "don't make fun of group X, feel free to make fun of group Y."

Who's the "weak and vulnerable" in this case? Muslims or Christians? Well, in France, you could argue that the former are. Globally, you could argue that the latter are, since by number, Christians are the most persecuted group on Earth. And being honest, who's more vulnerable - Muslims in secular/Christian countries, or Christians in Muslim/Islamic countries?

One might point out for instance that many further/far right groups including parties such as the Rassemblement National, PiS and Golden Dawn clearly embrace the traditional national religion as a key pillar of their party and identity... and they kill and assault people.

Difference being that no-one is saying that we shouldn't be allowed to insult and mock those groups.

In the West, right-wing terrorism is a bigger issue. Globally, the majority of terrorist attacks are conducted by Islamists. We can debate extenuating factors until Judgement Day, but until that happens, we can decide whether all religions are free from mockery, or none are. Arguing that only some religions should be free of it isn't a stance I can support.

He had Charles Murray on his podcast saying how bad it was he was cancelled in the 90s. Then he went through Murray’s data from the 90s and said something like ‘the liberals need to understand that IQ is genetic.

Well, he is technically correct there. There's certainly a link between genetics and intelligence. However, saying "race and IQ are linked" is kind of a misnomer, since there's no biological foundation for race.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I've already stated that I'm iffy about the image projections. The image being displayed in class wasn't done for the sake of mere offence (even if it was, wouldn't justify murder). Reason I'm iffy about it is that it's clearly getting into a tit-for-tat, that's already had a stabbing.

I'm not sure why you're coming for me then, because it seems like we agree on most things.

Do you need me to say that I don't think people should decapitate each other over religious offence? I don't think they should do that. I'm broadly negative on the whole decapitating people issue. Maybe if they're really rich, and even then use a guillotine like a normal person, and maybe put down a tarp or something.

But even then, this has been shifted from the classroom depiction to the image projection.

Again, yes, because that's what I was responding to.

To be fair, I'm not really cool with showing propaganda images, especially propaganda images aimed at minorities, in classrooms either unless the purpose is specifically to learn about propaganda, because children and young people are extremely vulnerable to propaganda. I kind of have to ask, what was supposed to be the point of that class? What did the teacher imagine they were doing? That's not to say that being a bad teacher should be grounds for beheading, but you'd think someone would have considered the impact on Muslim students in that class.

But this is France, and we all know Muslims don't have that kind of consideration in France, even children.

Simply ask the question as to whether religions are above critique/parody/insult, and if not, why?

I don't think religions should be above critique/parody/insult.

But I do think people should be, to some degree, and people have religions. That was the point of that little exercise with the Happy Merchant. The idea that you can magically separate attacks on religion from attacks on people is incredibly naïve. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's necessarily complex. An attack on religion can also have obvious political implications, and those political implications don't necessarily deserve to be protected.

If we wind back to the original CH and we read headlines such as "Muslims offended at depiction of prophet," then that wouldn't really be news.

Why not?

I mean, obviously it was news. That was literally the point. That was the intended media reaction, a huge quantity of celebratory frotting over how offended Muslims were and how important this was for free speech. But no serious media space was ever given to a response by Muslims to explain the offence they had received, because there was never an assumption that they had anything reasonable to say.

All religions have their nutters, but there's a strain in Islam that seems particuarly reactionary.

Do you think that Ayatollah Khomeini and the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo attack are representative of the same "strain" in Islam?

I'm not a fan of the law, but it was consistent in banning religous symbols from display. So simiarly, no crosses.

How is a long sleeved swimsuit a religious symbol?

Why wasn't it a religious symbol before 2016?

If this is just a natural manifestation of Frances legal commitment to public secularism, why were public beaches not already covered by preexisting secular clothing laws?

Why was it necessary to draft these laws on a local, rather than a national level?

Why are there no cases of this law being applied to forms of religious expression other than Muslim women wearing long-sleeved swimsuits?

How many shootings/beheadings have been done by Christians in France recently?

Certainly more than there have been Islamist terror attacks.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Since when is being offensive a bad thing?

It is a bad thing.

Offending people is a fundamentally unpleasant thing to do. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it,, but if you don't consider the feelings of others as worthy of consideration, then you're a failed human who never developed the empathy required to live in a society, and you shouldn't be surprised when people treat you as such.

Perhaps we should teach people to internally reflect when they find themselves offended.

Wow. I never thought of it that way.

Next time someone screams [homophobic slur which is apparently censored on this site] or tells me to kill myself, I'll be sure to reflect and think critically about why that offends me, which is something I'd never have thought to do on my own.

You're so fucking wise, you know that.

Actually, you know, I guess I'm just not capable of living up to your standard. I guess I haven't critically reflected on my feelings of offence in the same way you've had to living the difficult life that you clearly have. So instead when someone offends me I'm going to critically reflect on why they feel entitled to do that. Is what they're doing actually reasonable, and if not, then what about the society they live in has given the impression that they're allowed to do it anyway?

I'm honestly kind of tired of critically reflecting on the values I hold, particularly since there's not really any way out of the values I hold without fundamentally compromising who I am for the benefit of someone else. So no, I'm not going to accept blame for my own feelings of offence, and I'm not going to ask any other marginalized person to do the same.

I accept (because I have no choice) that you have a societally given right to be offensive. I will not accept that you are in any way deserving of that right unless you demonstrate otherwise by managing to be anything other than completely basic and mediocre in your offensiveness.

I know that's kind of mean, but I think you can handle it.

 

[Agema]

I'm aware of the concept of punching up vs. punching down, but I have limited tolerance for it as an excuse for saying "don't make fun of group X, feel free to make fun of group Y."

It's not about "punching up" and "punching down" in the way you make out. It's about the effects of poverty, disempowerment, frustration, exposure to violence, and so on. People who get little from and feel unloved by society will likely have least respect for it in return. They have less to lose. Fewer means for redress through "conventional" means, and so on. These are structural societal factors that affect how communities feel and are likely to respond. As a community that is on the receiving end of a lot of attacks, how do its members discriminate someone innocently exercising the principle of free speech from simple racism? Especially when the racists come round and abuse them, explicitly stating it's their right to do so? And even if they can tell the difference, does it really matter? It's still just another indignity to heap on all the others they put up with.

Who's the "weak and vulnerable" in this case? Muslims or Christians?

Okay, let's contextualise. The killer in this case appears to have been Chechen. That would be a people who have gone through over 20 years of conflict and repression which killed about 200,000 (~10%?) and displaced many more - a colossal societal trauma, by any standards - and even now they live in severe repression. I am sure those who fled generally face huge discrimination in Russia, both by race and religion. How does that background inform a person's perpective on the world, and do you think it is similar to the average French Christian? Does the argument "Christians are more persecuted globally" really matter to the experience of Chechens since 1990?

In many cases, what we're talking about are mostly disaffected young men latching onto things that give their life some meaning. Actually, that's a lot of what the far right does too, and the red pill manosphere, or some leftist groups perhaps such as Antifa, and so on. These networks of determined, embittered, often violent people go out and find people to keep the good fight going. They provide a model for disaffected, unhappy people to cling to. And it's amazing how much our domestic terrorism comes from people with backgrounds of poverty, drug use, poor mental health and petty crime. Troubled people seeking security and meaning.

Islam is I think an issue largely because the political situation in much of the Muslim world. Unstable, autocratic states with unhappy populations bred insurgencies, and insurgencies and wars bred brutality, and when you put asymmetric warfare and basic brutality and vengeance together, you get terrorism. Kill one of ours, we kill one of yours. You have a jet bomber, and we have to strap a bomb round someone. Islamic terrorism is of course only for Muslims, so this network and model born of decades of woe doesn't catch others. Other angry and unhappy people in the West have to find another model, which in our societies is usually less destructive, although on the other hand, it's sometimes not: so is the US habit of going on a shooting spree a societally established model for people to take up.

Difference being that no-one is saying that we shouldn't be allowed to insult and mock those groups.

Actually, they sort of are, just in a different way.

They're busy revising national histories, changing museums, glorifying their pasts, erasing their sins, changing the laws to meet their religious preferences. Take a look at what they feel about disrespecting their traditions. When nationalists attack leftists for pointing out the atrocities of their past, what do you think they are doing if not attempting to protect their pet beliefs from criticism by trying to shame people into silence? And in some quarters, they really do pack the bully-boys onto the streets to hand out a more physical message.

 

[CM156]

That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it,, but if you don't consider the feelings of others as worthy of consideration, then you're a failed human who never developed the empathy required to live in a society, and you shouldn't be surprised when people treat you as such.

Of course I consider the feelings of people who may become offended and outraged at cartoons. I just don't find the proportion it has reached to be reasonable.

You're so fucking wise, you know that.

Well, thank you. I try.

I accept (because I have no choice) that you have a societally given right to be offensive.

And a legal right: don't forget that. Thank God for the First Amendment. And the Second Amendment, for unrelated reasons.

I will not accept that you are in any way deserving of that right unless you demonstrate otherwise by managing to be anything other than completely basic and mediocre in your offensiveness.

Anyone's opinion of what rights I "deserve" or not is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. But I appreciate your input. And I think it's good that you're exercising your right to free speech to tell me what you think.

I know that's kind of mean, but I think you can handle it.

I can, actually. And I personally can handle much worse.

 

[Shadyside]

There is good offensive material, and there is bad offensive material. Unfortunately, the line is incredibly blurry.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Anyone's opinion of what rights I "deserve" or not is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

And yet we're supposed to care about your feelings on how other people should be "taught" to react to offence.

Yeah, fuck that.

 

[CM156]

And yet we're supposed to care about your feelings on how other people should be "taught" to react to offence.

Not really a "feeling" more of an idea. I try to use "I think" statements when it comes to policy proposals, rather than "I feel" statements.

Yeah, fuck that.

You're completely free to think that way.

 

[Hawki]

I'm not sure why you're coming for me then, because it seems like we agree on most things.

Um, no. We don't.

That isn't bad or good, but anytime we've discussed anything, we've usually been in disagreement.

Do you need me to say that I don't think people should decapitate each other over religious offence?

I don't "need" anyone to say anything. I don't think anyone disagrees that decapitation is bad. The main point of contention seems to be sensitivies vs. freedom of speech and all that.

To be fair, I'm not really cool with showing propaganda images, especially propaganda images aimed at minorities, in classrooms either unless the purpose is specifically to learn about propaganda, because children and young people are extremely vulnerable to propaganda. I kind of have to ask, what was supposed to be the point of that class? What did the teacher imagine they were doing? That's not to say that being a bad teacher should be grounds for beheading, but you'd think someone would have considered the impact on Muslim students in that class.

But this is France, and we all know Muslims don't have that kind of consideration in France, even children.

If you're studying history, studying propaganda is a useful tool. We did it for WWI, WWII, we did it for the White Australia Policy, etc. Images can offend someone, at some point, in some way, but that goes with the territory. And the teacher already gave the Muslim students the opportunity to leave. Also, I don't think propaganda is the right work for satirical cartoons on Muhammad. That's about as much propaganda is to Muslims as Life of Brian is to Christians.

I don't think religions should be above critique/parody/insult.

But I do think people should be, to some degree, and people have religions. That was the point of that little exercise with the Happy Merchant. The idea that you can magically separate attacks on religion from attacks on people is incredibly naïve. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's necessarily complex. An attack on religion can also have obvious political implications, and those political implications don't necessarily deserve to be protected.

There's a quote from Majid Narwaz (sp?) that sums it up for me - "no idea is above scrutiny, and no person is below dignity."

Yes, people attach themselves to ideas. Criticize the ideas, you might hurt people. That's on them. This isn't even just religion - people put stock in non-religious ideas all the time. Being offended isn't really a defence against critiquing those ideas.

Why not?

I mean, obviously it was news. That was literally the point. That was the intended media reaction, a huge quantity of celebratory frotting over how offended Muslims were and how important this was for free speech. But no serious media space was ever given to a response by Muslims to explain the offence they had received, because there was never an assumption that they had anything reasonable to say.

The news was the Charlie Hebdo shooting, or in this case, the decapitation. Saying people are offended isn't news. Not in any meaningful sense. There's always going to be some person offended, in some way, in some manner. Saying a person/group is offended isn't news I'm particuarly interested in. Not unless they act on that offence in a meaningful manner.

Do you think that Ayatollah Khomeini and the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo attack are representative of the same "strain" in Islam?

More or less.

You can pull a "technically" and distinuish between sects of Islam, so on that level, I doubt they follow the same creed, but it's more or less the same pattern of fundamentalism. Insult the prophet, prepare to die, kaffir.

How is a long sleeved swimsuit a religious symbol?

Why wasn't it a religious symbol before 2016?

If this is just a natural manifestation of Frances legal commitment to public secularism, why were public beaches not already covered by preexisting secular clothing laws?

Why was it necessary to draft these laws on a local, rather than a national level?

Why are there no cases of this law being applied to forms of religious expression other than Muslim women wearing long-sleeved swimsuits?

You'll have to ask the authorities.

Again, I'm not a fan of the law. As I've said, freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion.

Certainly more than there have been Islamist terror attacks.

I'd need a source on that. I'd like to remind you that Islamists killed 137 people in a single night in 2015, and injured hundreds more. Statistically, France has a very low murder rate (1.2 per 100,000).

It is a bad thing.

Offending people is a fundamentally unpleasant thing to do. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it,, but if you don't consider the feelings of others as worthy of consideration, then you're a failed human who never developed the empathy required to live in a society, and you shouldn't be surprised when people treat you as such.

There's a saying - "offence is taken, not given." And while that's not 100% true 100% of the time...well, here's some statements that I think are true.

-Religion is generally bad, but Islam, in the 21st century, is more violent than many others.

-The United States has a bizzare fixation with individual liberty, gun rights, and appreciates the founders with a level of zeal I find weird.

-The Earth isn't flat, and anyone who thinks it's flat is ill informed at best.

Those three statements could easily cause offence to people. People can be offended or not. Doesn't change the fact that I think they're true. Saying "you could cause offence" isn't reason in of itself to not say them. And to flip it around, you could stay stuff like:

-People with platypus avatars need to get a life.

-People who write fanfiction are weebos.

-People who vote for the greens are throwing their vote away, and are morons

I can certainly take offence at any of that. So what? Being offended doesn't change anything in of itself. Go through the Internet, you'll find something that offends you, in some way, at some point. Learning to deal with offence and hurt feelings is part of life.

I'm not saying people should go into people's faces and scream abuse (that's just being an asshole), but there's a middle ground.

 

[Hawki]

Okay, let's contextualise. The killer in this case appears to have been Chechen. That would be a people who have gone through over 20 years of conflict and repression which killed about 200,000 (~10%?) and displaced many more - a colossal societal trauma, by any standards - and even now they live in severe repression. I am sure those who fled generally face huge discrimination in Russia, both by race and religion. How does that background inform a person's perpective on the world, and do you think it is similar to the average French Christian? Does the argument "Christians are more persecuted globally" really matter to the experience of Chechens since 1990?

It doesn't matter, but that suggests a beef with Russia. Do you think a Frenchie depicting a cartoon of Muhammad is in any way related to Russia and Chechnea? Do you think he murdered a man because he was Chechnean, or Muslim?

In many cases, what we're talking about are mostly disaffected young men latching onto things that give their life some meaning. Actually, that's a lot of what the far right does too, and the red pill manosphere, or some leftist groups perhaps such as Antifa, and so on. These networks of determined, embittered, often violent people go out and find people to keep the good fight going. They provide a model for disaffected, unhappy people to cling to. And it's amazing how much our domestic terrorism comes from people with backgrounds of poverty, drug use, poor mental health and petty crime. Troubled people seeking security and meaning.

...and?

You're right, but am I supposed to be sympathetic to the alt-right because they're disafected? No. I mean, anyone living in poverty has my sympathy. That sympathy evaporates when you commit murder.

Islam is I think an issue largely because the political situation in much of the Muslim world. Unstable, autocratic states with unhappy populations bred insurgencies, and insurgencies and wars bred brutality, and when you put asymmetric warfare and basic brutality and vengeance together, you get terrorism. Kill one of ours, we kill one of yours. You have a jet bomber, and we have to strap a bomb round someone. Islamic terrorism is of course only for Muslims, so this network and model born of decades of woe doesn't catch others. Other angry and unhappy people in the West have to find another model, which in our societies is usually less destructive, although on the other hand, it's sometimes not: so is the US habit of going on a shooting spree a societally established model for people to take up.

And again, so what?

You put the shooting spree as an example. Yes, these may be disaffected young men. So what? Brenton Tarrant was disaffected in some way before he killed 51 Muslims in Christchurch. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? Am I supposed to feel sorry for the people who joined ISIS?

Life will deal various people shitty hands. That doesn't automatically excuse their actions.

Actually, they sort of are, just in a different way.

They're busy revising national histories, changing museums, glorifying their pasts, erasing their sins, changing the laws to meet their religious preferences. Take a look at what they feel about disrespecting their traditions. When nationalists attack leftists for pointing out the atrocities of their past, what do you think they are doing if not attempting to protect their pet beliefs from criticism by trying to shame people into silence? And in some quarters, they really do pack the bully-boys onto the streets to hand out a more physical message.

I don't think anyone is saying people CAN'T question that though. Pulling down statues without wider societal consent isn't the same thing as questioning why those statues were up there, or the truths and myths behind the people those statues depict.

Even then, as actual terrorism been done in regards to this issue? I mean, I guess you could sort of answer yes, if one follows the string far enough (far-right terrorism is a major concern). But no-one's worried about upsetting the far-right. No-one should be. If the far-right terrorist kills someone because they want a statue of Robet E. Lee to stand up, and an Islamist terrorist kills someone for a cartoon, then they're both fuckwits. And if a far-left terrorist kills someone as well, then they're also a fuckwit.

 

[CM156]

People who vote for the greens are throwing their vote away, and are morons

Well, to be fair, I would agree with that statement, if we're talking about the Green party in my country, due to their opposition to nuclear power.

More or less.

You can pull a "technically" and distinuish between sects of Islam, so on that level, I doubt they follow the same creed, but it's more or less the same pattern of fundamentalism. Insult the prophet, prepare to die, kaffir.

They are different in terms of sect and what particular school of Islamic jurisprudence they subscribe to. But Islamists (as opposed to just Muslims) believe in a state where Islamic law is the final law, binding on all people, Muslims or not.

I am not a fan of this. I don't think religious law should apply to non-adherents of that religion.

 

[Hawki]

Well, to be fair, I would agree with that statement, if we're talking about the Green party in my country, due to their opposition to nuclear power.

I have the benefit of preferences here. So usually, I go along the lines of Green>Labor>LNP. When I took the voting compass test, I actually end up as a hodge podge of the three.

As for nuclear, yep, that's a blind spot for the greens. I don't know about building new plants, but we sure as hell should keep pre-existing plants going for as long as possible. Shame the likes of Germany and California didn't get the memo.

 

[fOx]

The head clerics in France really need to sit down and develop a strategy to help weed out or find these dickheads before the French people decide to give their Islamic citizens a crash course in how they got rid of the last load of fuckers who pushed the common man to breaking point.

They raised a white flag and went home?