EPTWhy in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?
And it doesn't really take much to find out where he stands in this whole thing.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 513
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
And it doesn't really take much to find out where he stands in this whole thing. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
Surely I believe that people like nibbler are not that condemning against terrorism - since he prefers to reduce terrorism to statistics like car crashes, completely ignoring the psychological/sociological/cultural meaning that an attack has over an incident. That does not mean I consider him a terrorist. It means that in a spectre where 0% is 'pro-terrorism' and 100% 'against-terrorism' with 50% being neutral, he is surely not located in the upper part. Funny because your last three lines are exactly what you are doing. Also, you can keep the patronizing tone for yourself. Thanks. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
| ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
Completely against terrorism with a small reserve? Mostly against but doubtful on some points? Not entirely in favor but sometimes intrigued? So apparently being 100% against terrorism is the work of extremist thought. Do you even believe what you type? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
Also, I think my patronizing tone was perfectly appropriate. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
I don't see many people arguing that it's very sad that women are forced to wear the veil in muslim country - well France is the exact opposite. Now this ban on burkini is, to me, unconstitutional and will not stand, but the ban on burka/veil in school is a blessing and anybody who tells you otherwise is either not a french or just an ignorant one. It's up to the muslims to adapt and integrate. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 12 2016 21:48 farvacola wrote: WhiteDog, should there be a ban on the wearing of yarmulkes as well? Everything is banned farva, in schools (and for public servants) everything, even cross. In fact the law does not even mention the veil, it states that all religious sign are banned. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
(also difference between like, banning from the public and banning from certain public institutions/public officials.) | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 12 2016 21:50 farvacola wrote: Really? I had no idea lol. It's the french laïcité. The church had huge power in France, and people (from the left at the time) tried to push the church away from public matters, so they basically enacted a law that would force the religion in the private sphere. The state does not even recognize the existence of cult - from a legal standpoint, the state does not even know what a muslim is. When the veil appeared, it obviously clashed with that, so the law was changed to reassure this basic principle. The street, and the beach, is not considered "public" so you can do whatever you want (which is why I believe this burkini ban is unconstitutional). But in a school, or when you're a public servant, it is different. On August 12 2016 21:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: The yarmulke is more like a hijab than a burka. While I don't think burkas are all that significant of a political issue (they are legal in Norway, but I've never seen a muslim wearing one - it's just not very common), I don't mind banning them. Banning hijabs is an entirely different issue from banning niqab/burka. (also difference between like, banning from the public and banning from certain public institutions/public officials.) Yeah the burqa on the street was banned for security reasons, nothing to do with the laïcité. The argument at the time was that it was impossible to know who was behind the burka, and impossible to identify them since the face was covered. The police needed some kind of legal basis to see the face of the people under the burka. This law was stupid by the way. At the time, the number of women with the burka was around 250 ... | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 12 2016 21:28 SoSexy wrote:... Surely I believe that people like nibbler are not that condemning against terrorism - since he prefers to reduce terrorism to statistics like car crashes, completely ignoring the psychological/sociological/cultural meaning that an attack has over an incident. That does not mean I consider him a terrorist. It means that in a spectre where 0% is 'pro-terrorism' and 100% 'against-terrorism' with 50% being neutral, he is surely not located in the upper part. ... Maybe you're "sure" he's not in the "upper part", but I'm certainly not. Speaking for myself, I think Islamic terrorism is incredibly overrated as a threat in the Western world, but that doesn't mean that I in any sense approve of it. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 12 2016 21:56 farvacola wrote: Given that we Americans are so averse to banning pretty much anything that looks or acts like speech, I find the laicite fascinating. Having talked with Corum a bit about such things, I can begin to see why overt public displays of religiosity are so problematic in France, particularly in the context of non-Christian religions. There are also a lot of regional difference. The south, the north and the center belt are the most laïc (and the most revolutionary - the two are obviously linked) part of France. On the sides, east and west, there are tons of religious signs everywhere (huge cross and all) and some regions (the Alsace-Lorraine) don't have the laïcité. So funnily enough, the part of France that gave us the revolution and that defended the public freedom that we cherrish in the west is the part that is the most reluctant to accept any kind of public display of religious signs. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
| ||
|
D_lux
Hungary60 Posts
So SoSexy cleared it up for you. He didn't mean to talk about lord_nibbler explicitly when replying to me. So thats that. On the other hand you did exactly the same thing you asked SoSexy not to do. For example here: Additionally, I myself identify as a pro-immigrant, pro-refugee, pro-accepting muslims and other people from different cultures despite the knowledge that many of them harbor thoughts I think are dangerous for our society. I can understand and accept that people vehemently disagree with me regarding this, but what I do not accept is the idea that I, or others with similar mindsets 'thought the charlie hebdo artists deserved to die'. I have quite extensive knowledge regarding both my own thought processes and the thought processes of other people who share my views on immigration, because I interact with many of these people on a fairly regular basis, and I have never, not once, seen a single pro-immigrant, pro-cultural acceptance, pro-refugee, say that the artists at charlie hebdo deserved to die. I realize that there are muslim non-terrorists who believe this, but these are not the people you accuse of 'justifying everything'. You are attributing people with thoughts that they have never expressed because you prefer arguing with a parody over arguing with a real person, and I am telling you that this is entirely unproductive, and it is preferable to all of us if you stop doing this. Thank you. I think SoSexy was never explicitly talking about you, so nobody attributed you with any thoughts. You invented that part on your own here. I also want to add that I think patronizing speech is never really appropriate. It is very passive aggresive thing to do, has no real value in terms of proving your right. It only turns the debate into a quarrel. Which is again the very thing you said you were against. It is also very hard to express clear thoughts on these tough matters here. We are also talking about a couple of different things that are happening right now in europe, which ofcourse have connections but we are also blurring the lines whenever or wherever it suits us. What I am, and I think many others are trying to tell/prove has to do with this: Last year (2015) there was a very sudden influx of people that entered Europe. These people consist of refugees/migrants/illegal migrants. Since the numbers were so big nobody was able to tell them apart from each other. Now what happend was that hundreds of thousands of people were allowed to enter european countries without proper background checks or verifications. Some people said that this is okay since there can't be any terrorists among them and it is totally fine and infact our duty to do this. Other people said that this isn't such a good idea to do because its extremely likely that there are terrorists among these people. Those who said this were shunned and had been called racist, xenophobes, islamophobe etc. etc. Now we see that there were terrorists and unwanted people in these recently arrived groups of people. We see they commited crimes and terrorist attacks. When I mention this that we told you so, that this would happen and those who said that there are no terrorists among these people were wrong. The reply I get from the likes is that ohh this is perfectly fine, this is how things go around here. This is just the initial phase of a multicultural heaven thats about to happen anytime soon. Now for me this is very irritating to hear. These people don't admit that they were wrong. They start to argue further that this is infact normal. I think this is abnormal and I'm trying to convince other people of this. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On August 12 2016 21:43 farvacola wrote: Something appears to have been lost in translation because you're criticizing the same thing Drone and I am; reducing the views of folks into basic "for or against" positions instead of giving them the benefit of nuance is exactly why all those continuum-based descriptors are so empty. The point here is that folks who preach tolerance and nod towards inclusivity can be and are just as "against terrorism" as those who seek to paint with a broader brush, and your prior comments are startlingly ignorant of that fact. Literally no one's views fall neatly enough on a 1-100% for or against scale to make that kind of logic appropriate here. Great post, but in similar vein it should be pointed out that the same logic applies when calling people concerned with the current immigration for racists and bigots. EDIT: Also, and this goes to everyone including myself: Could we all remember this isn't the US politics thread and keep a higher standard than in there? | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
That sentence deserves to be called out. It's on the same level as pro-refugee people saying that people who want less immigration are just as bad as Hitler. I have no problems with coherent arguments against immigration, I have no problems admitting that refugee crisis was on some points badly handled, I can concede that I myself had some naive opinions that have matured and somewhat altered over the past year. I have no problems with having a civil discourse regarding consequences of immigration and whether there should be more or less or whatever, I just have a huge problem with statements such as the one I just quoted, which is the one statement I have asked SoSexy to either justify (he did not do this to a satisfactory level, as expected, as the statement was monumentally stupid and impossible to justify) or retract (which he also did not do - but which I would absolutely have accepted). If he just said 'people who try to justify everything are despite their good intentions enabling terrorists' or something to that effect, I might disagree still, but it's a legitimate statement. Saying they are as bad as the terrorists however is not. It deserves to be called out, and SoSexy could simply reply with a 'you know what, you're right. This was a stupid exaggeration on my behalf, I'll try to be less aggressively confrontational in the future', and I would absolutely accept that. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
| ||
