What's new

Islamists kill 12 people in France during attack on newspaper office.

I just hope there isn't a lot of victim blaming after this.

There is nothing a woman can wear/do that "provokes" a man into raping her, and there is nothing these cartoonists drew that provoked their slaughter. The responsibility for this awful crime lies solely with the savages who did it--not with all of Islam, and not with the victims. As someone who mostly leans left, I'm already concerned that we're going to hear a lot of middling "The cartoonists did incite this..." type of responses. And of course on the right we're already seeing the anti-multiculturalism--whatever that means--type responses.

These cartoonists are not martyrs--leave that to jihadists--they're victims, and now they're heroes of free speech.

They obviously didn't deserve to be murdered. But they knew what they were doing, the knew of the likely "consequences" and they went on with it. Whether they were freedom fighters or whether they were just trying to sell some papers is irrelevant. They are certainly not heroes or martyrs in my eyes. May they RIP but they knew the lunatics they were dealing with and proceeded anyways.
 
I don't see anything in the rest of the post that nullifies the first part. In fact, it's not really relevant as Islamic militant are not part of our society, and they're not killing anyone because they've become soft and intolerant of political incorrectness...
The rest of my post stated that I think that the Islamists should not have gotten so offended
 
People have every right to make fun of the prophet. IMO there's better humour out there, but I really dgaf if a satirist criticizes our prophet or draws him-- and neither should all Muslims.
So we agree apparently

At the same time, I think we have gotten too sensitive as a society and way too politically correct and it's dumb that people get so offended so easily and feel that they need to punish the offenders.

So basically....... get some thicker skin Muslim extremists
 
1413513550_17214.jpg.pagespeed.ce.WkQZwszHzA.jpg
 
Siro, I am immigrant myself and I chose to accept everything my new country has to offer - even if it is way different than my country's tradition, laws, etc. We celebrate our national holidays or keep our traditions within the family and close community but we do not REQUEST or DEMAND it to be accepted by the rest of the country. There would be no problems with multiculturalism if everyone leaving their old countries would have same mentality and leave their old habbits and rituals there as well or keep it at family, community levels only. Just put your new country above your own personal needs! Accept it and become real part of it!
I am bringing my soccer team as example again - we are tied group of friends and we have people form all over the world, I counted 9 countries and actually canadians are minority but we have absolute fun and blast together and nationalities or religion was never an issue. Yeah occasionally, somebody in the party will not eat pork or drink, but that does not bother or offends anyone.
Why everybody can't be a big happy family at the country level? That is a million dollar question right there my friend and I would love to know the answer.

It's easy to get along as long as you have something to share in common. Football is your thing in that example. Also, probably the upsides of living in a similar community, same socio-linguistics. But if there is a separation in a country that puts the non citizens (not formally but as if the othered minorities) in a ghetto position to the mainstream of the nation, you cannot expect from the people themselves to try to get close to each other. To me, hatred is a fire that is lit by the hand of politicians and their benefactors. They need to manipulate their socio-structure in order to resume whatever they have going on that will keep them alive and prosper as power holders. For this, social groups get education both in family environments, friend groups, work places, schools. Every living breath moment has motives and codes to manipulate us to believe in something. How would a Muslim boy and a Christian French person could start packing against each other if in a theoratical universe, their heads were not filled with all the crap they see on TV and net, learn from communicating, parroting everything that another parrot teaches them, which usually leads to stereotypical hatred that makes it easier to hate each other? Money loving Jew, terrorist Muslim, down looking Christian. These are all proof to the fact that we as the majority of the population get the facts as if they are naturally there but not built. No person should be murdered if that person had nothing to do with another innocent's death. How can a caricature or a full trend of caricatures of hatred can end you getting murdered? Why do these people do that? I see this whole mess as a two side fire that spits flare to each other to keep each fire alive and grow. This all happened before in different situations. Non-believers have the strong hate for religion and religious people because of their own reasons, because of what they believe the religion caused throughout the history, all the sufferings, all the wars, they cannot take more of that illogical nonsense that causes all this and still get attacked by religious people just because they are telling the truth. But as their fury blinds them enough to offend the radicals beliefs, they lose ability to feel empathy for the other side. Not that they should, but a completely different mind across the other side is full of people that see themselves as martyrs to defend their sacred ideals. The hatred gets two sided, **** sandwich, no dialogue, no communication and it always turns into bloodshed. Your question's worth more than a million bucks, there isn't a 6 day creatable package formula for the perfect society, but there are known reasons to the consequences. And for starters, the better knowing sides can start to eliminate all this.
 
Locke recently retweeted a picture from the streets of Paris, thousands of people packed in the streets, a large sign "Not Afraid". It was moving.

As to Ak's post about immigration and e changing face of Europe. I watched a documentary on BYU TV a couple of years ago...Demographic Winter or something like that. It discussed trends and made projections about world populations for the next 50 years or so. The discussion on Europe left me chilled. The magnitude and speed of the demographic change was shocking. It's a whole new ball game, or a brave new world.

Now some random thoughts and ramblings. I really don't know for certain what to make of the world. And what I'm about to say are just some thoughts, I might change my mind later.

My 2 cents on multiculturism....I sort of believe the word is a lie. To me it does not mean bringing together many cultures to celebrate their differences. It is destroying cultures to create one monoculture. Boring and undesirable.

I don't believe that Islam and the west are compatible because neither group is willing to set aside fundamental core principles. I applaud individuals and small groups who are able to overcome those differences wherever they happen.

I heard or read some US senator or general saying something to the effect that the war against terror is not over...and it won't be over for our children or for our children's children children. I think this is sad, a cultural war fought with bullets. there will be many battles fought with bullets, but the war will be resolved with something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
Siro, I am immigrant myself and I chose to accept everything my new country has to offer - even if it is way different than my country's tradition, laws, etc. We celebrate our national holidays or keep our traditions within the family and close community but we do not REQUEST or DEMAND it to be accepted by the rest of the country. There would be no problems with multiculturalism if everyone leaving their old countries would have same mentality and leave their old habbits and rituals there as well or keep it at family, community levels only. Just put your new country above your own personal needs! Accept it and become real part of it!
I am bringing my soccer team as example again - we are tied group of friends and we have people form all over the world, I counted 9 countries and actually canadians are minority but we have absolute fun and blast together and nationalities or religion was never an issue. Yeah occasionally, somebody in the party will not eat pork or drink, but that does not bother or offends anyone.
Why everybody can't be a big happy family at the country level? That is a million dollar question right there my friend and I would love to know the answer.

Just because you don't like certain cultural mentalities does not mean that multiculturalism is a bad thing. Would you be opposed to Westerners pushing their cultural norms like free speech and democracy on others? Well, they do. And it works. The world is becoming more open and more democratic because the Western approach is the best model for development. You're opposed to Muslims trying to impose their cultural norms because you think those norms are backward. You're worried that the open market of ideas won't prove an adequate check because Muslims multiply a lot faster than most other groups. Your concerns are understandable.

But without multiculturalism, we're all doomed. Unlike many people, I am of the opinion that humankind has been on a trajectory of progress in every meaningful sense for thousands of years. The main reason for that is the proliferation of information into larger and larger groups. The Greeks had many brilliant ideas and insights (easily the greatest classical civ). When Middle Age Christians rediscovered the Greek legacy, it had been substantially and profoundly expanded upon by Muslim scholars. The Christians then took it a step further into what we currently consider science. Without the Arabian cultural merging with the other peoples of the Near East and Persia, the Muslim civilization would not have been possible. And without the mixing between Near Easterners, Northern African, Turks, and Iberian people, there would have been no Western civilization resembling anything we have today.

But even this account is very shallow. You have to look at an even larger picture. Humanity started out in one spot, with one culture and one set of ideas, and then others culture, religions, and languages emerged as they spread across the world. During that early hunter gatherer state, multiculturalism did not exist. That was the only true time where multiculturalism was not really possible over human lifetimes because of the limited population and technical means. Everything that happened after that point was a product of multiculturalism. The people who congregated into the first cities were merging their tribal cultures into a newer, more powerful one. Cities establishing spheres of control over their neighbors, forming city-states, was another form of multiculturalism. And so on. At no point was the cultural identity the same before as it was after the transition. The nomads that roamed Mesopotamia had nearly nothing in common with the eventual culture of Babylon, even though they were the ones who formed it.

And now with the advent of the internet, we finally have the seeds of a human culture at a planetary scale. That's why you're as concerned with Pakistani children as you are with French journalists. And that is why nationalist sentiment is at its lowest point in much of the developed world. The other day, I asked my co-workers a simple question; when was the last time you had the thought that you are an American? It is just not that important a consideration to most people. And I would like to see this continue, because it is of great benefit to humanity.

All I'm asking you to consider is if you really do believe in cultural segregation. As in, do you honestly believe that we should take a snapshot of the status of human cultures at this point and time, and then try to artificially enforce the status quo? For me, if countless division, endless stagnation and stunted species-wide growth is the only solution for something as trivial to the big picture as militant Islam, then we might as well let them take over, because we've already lost.
 
Siro, those are all good points but I think you are wrong about national sentiment being at its lowest. I think it is important for small nations to keep it as otherwise they will disappear from world map and lose their national identity. Thus why I think in countries like Denmark it will always be strong - I doubt there will be a day where Dane would not be proud of being Dane or would accept that it is not important for them. Just watch them sign national anthem when their team plays...
There is undeniable positive influences from other cultures we see everywhere - food influence, scientific research, sports training, etc. Its all great and it should be that way! I just don't think those outside influences should push past established local norms and laws, and certainly it can't push back to where it was hundreds of years ago ( for example women rights, gay rights, etc).
 
They are certainly not heroes or martyrs in my eyes. May they RIP but they knew the lunatics they were dealing with and proceeded anyways.

That they knew the lunatics they were dealing with, and proceeded anyways, is exactly what was heroic about them.
 
Just last Tuesday on The Daily Show, the guest was speaking of the human tendency to form more extreme views when you are among like-minded people. Multiculturalism moderates all elements of society.
 
That they knew the lunatics they were dealing with, and proceeded anyways, is exactly what was heroic about them.

If being a dead cartoonist makes you a hero I guess. I'm sure there families would rather have them alive then have some stupid cartoons published.
 
If being a dead cartoonist makes you a hero I guess. I'm sure there families would rather have them alive then have some stupid cartoons published.

You could say the same for the families of many soldiers, firefighters, police officers, etc.
 
If being a dead cartoonist makes you a hero I guess. I'm sure there families would rather have them alive then have some stupid cartoons published.

It's not that they were killed. It is that they stood for what they believed in and refused to be cowed by intimidation.

Tragic no matter how you look at it. No winners here.
 
You could say the same for the families of many soldiers, firefighters, police officers, etc.

I wouldn't compare a political cartoonist to a police officer, soldier or fire fighter as those are noble needed professions. But yes, I'm sure their families miss them very much.
 
I wouldn't compare a political cartoonist to a police officer, soldier or fire fighter as those are noble needed professions. But yes, I'm sure their families miss them very much.

Satire is also a noble profession.
 
It's not that they were killed. It is that they stood for what they believed in and refused to be cowed by intimidation.

Tragic no matter how you look at it. No winners here.

It is tragic. They didn't deserve to die by any stretch of the imagination. But I have a hard time feeling really sorry for someone that had first hand experience with the lunacy of terrorists and continued to push and push and push. If they were doing something truly important that might be different, but lets be serious. They were cartoonists, who published unfunny satirical cartoons to get a reaction. And they got a reaction.
 
Is that satire? Because if so that's pretty funny.

Whatever it takes to write good satire, I don't have it. That was not satire.

Satire is the leverage of the powerless to create change. Well-done satire reverberates for centuries (Swift) and can even become standard textbook material (Twain). It's the socially acceptable way to puncture the augustness and reverence given to institutions, be they of the government, the majority religion, or the corporate world. It uses humor, or horror, to replace angry diatribes. It enlightens by inviting the reader in.

Of course, satire can be and usually is poorly done (see Sturgeon's Law), and I have no opinion on how good the satire of Charlie Hebdo has been. Satire always falls flat when directed at the ideas of the disenfranchised. If Charlie Hebdo has been directing it's derision at the Muslim citizens of France, it's probably been poor satire. However, just as having a dirty police officer, or even a racist police culture, does not demean the calling of police work generally, poorly done satire does not demean satire generally.
 
Back
Top