|
|
On January 17 2015 12:40 rararock wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 12:24 lastpuritan wrote:On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote: If the rate of terrorist attacks one religion is way higher than other religions i hate that terrorism term, murder is murder. if it done by armies nobody cares how many people died whether they were soldiers or civilians. if they are soldiers we treat them like dying is part of their duty and if they are not soldiers, we still dont name it as terrorism. how many babies died thanks to US jets during War on Terror? were their lives less important compared to journalists or vice versa, same goes for whom saying those terrorists actions are well deserved. On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote: a country's murder rate is way higher than other countries, that is enough to label that religion or country as violent. then christianity is violent more than any other religion. [thinking medieval times, world wars etc.] We don't live in the middle ages, we don't live in the 1940s. We live now.
yes, you built a well working functional society over the many thousand lives of infidels or enemies.
sorry but what we do suffer today is strongly linked to victor's (church or old-world empires) false world designs.
think of an alternate history that great britain and its allies do not shape middle-east borders on desk, ottoguys are dominating world, dividing western Iraqlike Spain in 3 pieces, i would bet all my money that today we would be talking JESUS ACKBAR martyrs. at least, this was my main aspect, not to insult any religion or nation.
//
The reason certain terrorist attacks get widespread, near-unanimous coverage while others are near-completely ignored is that certain attacks play well into the philosophical and political motivations of both "sides".
The purpose of terrorist attacks within the borders of Western nations, such as suicide bombings, hijackings, or shootings, from the perspective of Al-Qaeda, is that, by executing them, they can reveal the inadequacies of the nation-state to defend its own people, and can do this doubly by being themselves non-state actors, making a real, visible, and powerful argument against the state's claim to the monopoly of force. This is how the terrorist disrupts modernity, by striking at the foundation of the modern state: its ability to defend its people.
Conversely, the corporate and government media of modern states is more than happy to feed the chaotic, panic-riddled fire that an attack has created, but not as an indictment of their own legitimacy, rather to gather for itself more power through the rhetoric of defending their people from such attacks.
More so, when such an attack is made, not against a government or corporate institution, but against a secular or "liberal" one, both sides are again to set to gain that much more in terms of propaganda. Al-Qaeda is able to say that no one is safe, because all are complicit, even cartoonists; while mass media is able to dismiss all notions of the attack as a manifestation of its own government's torture programs or occupations, but claim, in this instance validly, that the attacks
are directed at enlightenment values.
The nihilism of the terrorist, the way in which the terrorist attacks everything, and rejects modernity entirely, allows media to selectively choose which values are under attack, and which values it can then claim to be defending, as if any modern state actually gives a damn about free speech.
|
On January 17 2015 12:08 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 11:47 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 11:40 mcc wrote:On January 17 2015 11:08 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously criticizing religion should be allowed. I also think this is more of a moral question than a legal one. As Christians it's pretty clear that we're supposed to not spread hate. So I don't think it's a great idea to create caricatures just to divide people and drive people apart, and if it crosses a certain line I think people should also have the option to fight these things legally(This is obviously also my perspective as a German, as people here have their "human dignity" constitutionally protected)
On the other hand it's obviously important that religious people have enough self-confidence and self irony to not get angry about every single provocation, and it's certainly true that some religious groups overall have thinner skin than others. Human dignity should be limited to things that you are born with. Religion is no such thing. All religions are dangerous tools of hatred and division and thus need to be combatted. It is moral imperative that religions are ridiculed. Once we start respecting religious feelings we might as well start respecting nazis and racists. They are also people whose feelings need to be protected according to your argument. Or are we going to cherrypick which evil ideologies are to be protected and which are not to be protected ? Anyway Germany has nothing to be proud of. Your blasphemy law is ridiculous, even though not terribly big deal. just because you feel that way doesn't mean its the right way and inefficient way to handle the situation. religion is a huge part of many people's lives and just to brush it off as some insignificant and useless idea is a slap in the face to shit load of people. its better to understand what religion is, help people understand what religion is and allow them to make up their mind themselves to improve their belief or to stray away from it. saying religion is ridiculous when its been part of human civilization perhaps longer than fire, is ridiculous. it causes nothing but more friction. religion can help or destroy like many things, taking religion out of the equation is not going to change anything. i personally have seen more good than bad and if it helps a person make them better, i'm all for it. but like anything, people can take advantage of it and people should be made aware of it. Religion causes friction (some are better at it and some worse) by its mere existence. Thankfully religion is becoming smaller and smaller part of lives of less and less people. I am not sure if the trend will stay the same, but evidently it is possible to make religion nearly non-issue. And there are good empirical data to point out at least correlation between that and better quality of life including less violence. And when I mean religion I mean any ideology. Nationalisms and other -isms are the same. There are some who will also claim that nationalism, communism (as in the specific violent movement) are good ideas, but they are as full of .... as whoever claims that religions are good ideas. Really ? You saw some personal anecdotes of the "good" in a first world country. And you want to state that the bad that we all see is less prevalent ? You mean the suffering Catholic church brings all over Africa and South America. Just that trumps all good things that can be attributed to religion. Or even worse what islam causes in basically any islamic country with like 3 exceptions that are not completely terrible ? Or maybe we can talk about evangelical Christians in US. Any honest accounting is so lopsided that your statement is just simply false. EDIT: Just today there were people killed over the world with the stated explanation that has absolutely no other cause than religion. I am talking about mobs again being violent due to Mohammed pictures. Those mobs would not be where they are if not for religion. No socioeconomic factor played any role whatsoever. That's about that idea that all that violence has nothing to do with religion. While there might be partially some other motivation in the case of the Paris attacks, there is absolutely none in this case. Btw, my overarching point is not "religion is bad". That is a tangent, that is just to stress the following. If we are to stop offending muslims, be prepared to stop offending absolutely anyone, including some rather unpleasant ideas.
whoa sounds like we were on the same page until you went ahead with your agenda while forgetting what i said earlier.
getting rid of religion is just as likely as achieving world peace or getting rid of discrimination, it'll never happen. so whats next? make the best of it and it'll always be an uphill battle. religion is a double edged sword (like nationalism), i acknowledged this earlier. just as chrisitians have gone from their "barbaric" ways to their current way and nothing has changed except the believer's perspective and the change in perspective varies by region (cultural change), as you mentioned some violent and some not, i believe same can be applied with islam and its changing even now.
bad shit happens and to blame it on religion is a crappy way of an excuse because its human nature. humans do bad shit, humans are superstitious, humans can be hateful, humans are greedy. if it isn't one religion it'll be another religion or some other -ism or something like north korea; the most religious country in the world yet not religious.
and in my personal experience, note, personal, as in i'm not taking into account of other events since i was not there, and yes, i live in first world country, i would be lying if i'm telling a personal story about a region i've never been to; i've seen people use religion as a good motivation that helps them become a better person, why would it be bad to get rid of this? i'm willing to take in both the good and bad and do best to deal with the bad. people do bad shit and will use whatever is available to them whether it be religion or nationalism or whatever, religion just happens to be a most common way to bind people in certain region.
attacking muhammad is not attacking islam, its attacking the identity of muslim people.
go ahead and talk shit about your friend's mom by drawing offensive drawings and whatnot and see what kind of reaction you get. your friend wont kill you i'm sure but i wouldnt be so sure if you two grew up in certain parts of the world where it seems normal to kill one another for such offense. and no, not everyone lives in the 21st century and you can't do anything to change this. which brings me to my earlier point: you can't compare your cultural standards to another culture's standards and get results.
its kind of like a buddhist not forgetting to remove any swastikas before going to germany or a japanese not forgetting to leave any rising sun t-shirt before going to korea. you can't just force your way into germany and explain what swastika means to your buddhist belief, its better to cope with the cultural difference in a more efficient way. knowing muslims can be offended and react violently, why keep doing it? they knew the costs and it became real, its a shame in both ways that certain muslims had to act such way and that charlie hebdo just had to do it when they were asked not to. (i personally think the attack wasn't over the actual offending draws but used as an excuse to do something by terrorists)
|
On January 17 2015 09:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 08:30 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 08:26 kwizach wrote:On January 17 2015 08:09 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 07:28 kwizach wrote:On January 17 2015 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 05:50 kwizach wrote:On January 17 2015 04:50 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 03:48 kwizach wrote:On January 16 2015 07:05 MrCon wrote:
[quote]
Wow, exactly like dieudonné :D
But dieudonné is hate for some reason while CH is free speech. That's why the cursor problem is a problem, when people that say the same thing but on one side it's considered "hate" and another "freedom of speech". On January 16 2015 07:52 MrCon wrote:
[quote]
Ok so forget dieudonné, most french people are brainwashed by years of media lies about him anyway so you're right talking about him is counter productive. Dieudonné targets everyone by the way, like CH.
Let's talk about CH instead, all year long they say arabs are terrorists On January 16 2015 07:30 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
So targeting one group is off limits, but the other is totally fine because... You said so? A Muslim will tell you that they have no more choice in believing than a Jew has of being jewish (which ironically is tied largely to Judaism). I'm sorry but your distinction doesn't really work. Both of you are completely failing to understand the difference between Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo. The difference was made clear by Acertos but I'll explain it again. Dieudonné attacks religious people, namely Jews (for being Jews). He is clearly anti-semitic, has made anti-semitic statements, and has been condemned for them. Charlie Hebdo does not attack or criticize religious people. It does not attack Jews, it does not attack Muslims, it does not attack Christians (and it does not attack Arabs either, contrary to what you said). What Charlie Hebdo does is attack all religious extremists (not religious people in general) and criticize all religions and religious symbols (again, not religious people). Criticizing religions for the systems of beliefs they are, and mocking religious institutions and religious symbols for various reasons (for example for the Pope's stance on condoms), is not the same as attacking the religious people themselves. You're attacking ideas, institutions and figures of authority, NOT religious people as a group. This is an important distinction and it explains why Dieudonné has been condemned for anti-semitism/incitement to racial hatred while Charlie Hebdo has not (its condemnations were usually for having insulted individuals). Charlie Hebdo is an antiracist publication which has never promoted the type of hate-speech that Dieudonné is well-known for. To the contrary, its cartoons ridicule hate speech and they use right-wing imagery to mock it and denounce it those right-wing ideas. On January 16 2015 08:00 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
There's double standard. Everybody knows about it. WIth regards to the matter at hand, namely Charlie Hebdo and French law, there is absolutely no double standard, no. If you promote hate speech by targeting groups of people you get condemned. If you criticize religions, you don't. It's the same for everyone. It's untrue. Some of Charlie's caricature were insulting - the coran is "shit" for exemple, or the one where all the black pregnant women saying "Don't touch our allocations !" (it's just racist plain and simple). I'm personally completly OKAY with those, and they didn't create any fuss in the media (aside from some specific extremist group), because, let's say it, spitting on the muslim "community" or the dominated class of our society is less "important" to our elites than any insult toward the jewish community (look at the Sine's affair, the chronique he was fired for was not antisemite at all, but it create a huge fuss in the media). Charlie was more or less equal, but don't tell me there's no double standard in the media. Completely false on both counts. The "Le Coran c'est de la merde, ça n'arrête pas les balles" cover denounced the slaughter of unarmed Muslim partisans of Morsi by the Egyptian military. The point of the drawing is to show that the dead had nothing to protect themselves but the Quran. There is absolutely nothing racist about the cartoon, which precisely condemned the atrocities in Egypt perpetrated by the military. The cover with the black pregnant women saying "Don't touch our allocations!" combines two different news stories of the time: a reduction in allocations in France and the crimes of Boko Haram against women, including stories of kidnapping and of rape. The aim of the cover is to denounce and mock right-wing fantasies about foreigners coming to France to "steal" from the French social system - including the scarecrow often used by the right of foreign mothers coming to France to give birth on French soil. They were therefore ridiculing right-wing fantasies, not endorsing them. Nothing about these drawings was attacking Muslims as religious people - one served to denounce atrocities perpetrated against Muslims, and the other served to denounce right-wing fantasies about immigrants, including Muslims. To think they were "racist" is to utterly misunderstand them. Again, Charlie Hebdo never "spit" on the Muslim community or on any other religious community - it criticized religions, not religious groups of people (except extremists, from every religion). Siné was fired because of putting forward the idea that Jean Sarkozy became a Jew and married a Jewish woman for personal profit. It can very well be argued that what he wrote had antisemitic undertones (i.e. it was aimed at Jews themselves), which is why the decision to fire him was made. Siné was cleared by the courts, but it doesn't change the fact that the reasoning for firing him was that it was felt by those who took the decision that he was aiming at a religious group of people as such, contrary to what the journal does. There is no double standard. I'm amazed. How can you think implying that all black and muslim women makes babies for allocations is not racist, but saying that he converted to judaism in order to marry his jewish wife, who is also the heir of the Darty familly, is antisemite. You can contextualize all you want, there is nothing in the caricature that imply it is a jab at right wing extremism (which is the reason why the caricature created an outrage in the far left), just like saying "the coran is shit", whatever the context, is clearly a global view on islam (just like drawing a bomb in Mohammed's turban is implying islam is terrorist by essence). Again, I find all that completly OK (I'm for a total freedom of press), and I am not at all saying Charlie is biased (Charb was a hero to me), but the public outrage that followed Siné's small text shows a lot on how the media and our society view all these events. I just explained to you why both covers that you mentioned were absolutely not aimed at Muslims. The cover with the Muslim women asking for allocations was, as I just said, to ridicule ring-wing fantasies on the topic, not to actually imply that Muslim women really do make babies for allocations. It almost only created an "outrage" among those who did not understand the cover because they probably don't read the journal. The same goes for the cover with the Muslim with the Quran getting shot, which condemned the Egyptian military for the massacre and not the Muslims who got killed. There is nothing racist about either message - all you need to do is understand how the cartoons work and what they mean. On January 17 2015 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:
Even in Charlie, many people clearly stated that Charlie under Philippe Val was biased (even people who actually work/worked in Charlie : Tignous was one of them, so was Delfeil de Ton or Olivier Cyran) and believed attacking the muslim was non pertinent. Putting that aside, in the media it is pretty obvious that there is a double standard : Eric Zemmour, Houellebecq, Finkelkraut, Fourest or Malka are all always invited and well known for some curious comment. If Houellebecq last book pictured a society with a jewish government, everybody would have instantly called it antisemite. Somehow, implying France is overrun by muslim give you open access to all medias. There is a difference between being too alarmist about extremists and being actually racist against the entire Muslim population. There was no anti-Muslims racism whatsoever at Charlie Hebdo. I despise Zemmour but he's been condemned for hate speech before and the double standard we were talking about was from the legal point-of-view. People get condemned when they preach hate against a religious, "ethnic" group or skin color, not when their target is a religion. Dieudonné could say the same exact thing. What does he mean by Shoananas ? (He argued in court that it just about "hot ananas") By Charlie Coulibaly ? By the first sketch he had that made all this fuss ? If Dieudonné says "I said Charlie Coulibaly" to caricature the islamist extremists" does it work ? On this specific caricature, there are no reference to right wing extremist. At least, it's pretty bad caricature. No, if you take a look at the specific cases where Dieudonné got condemned, he was clearly targeting Jews as religious people. Again, that has never been the case of Charlie Hebdo, for any group of religious people. Honestly, I'm not sure how you're still not understanding the difference between targeting religion/religious institutions/religious symbols and targeting religious people. In the two covers you mentioned, the targets were respectively the (far) right wing trying to demonize the figure of the immigrant in France, and the Egyptian military. Neither targeted Muslims. The fact that you didn't understand the covers does not mean that they were racist. On January 17 2015 08:09 WhiteDog wrote:
The problem is not really that they are condemned, it is that despite the condamnation they are still there in the media giving their point of view on everything - like Fourest who got condemn for diffamation several times. If you agree that there is no double standard from the legal point of view, that's already something. Fourest is an intellectual who's done very valuable work on both the far right and on religious extremists, and I don't see why she should not be invited on these topics. I never said there was any double standard from the legal point of view ! Here is my first sentence : "Charlie was more or less equal, but don't tell me there's no double standard in the media." Actually one of the main problem we have with kids in 93 is that they barely ever know about the legal point of view on those things because the media rarely publicize the result : the time of the media and the time of the justice system are entirely different, and following the first makes you believe the society as a whole is biased. Your first claim of a "double standard" was in reply to someone mentioning Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo. There is no double standard with respect to how the two are treated both legally and in the media, as I explained. Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 08:30 WhiteDog wrote:
Fourest did very valuable work ? LOL Please. She's a liar nothing more. "Working" in social science needs some kind of epistemology and rigor, she have none of those. Most of the book she wrote got condemned for diffamation (on Le Pen and on Ramadan for exemple). Not "most of the books she wrote", no. She lost in court with respect to the Le Pen book largely for mentioning private details and drawing generalizations to the FN for things which should have been attributed to the Le Pen family members, not for anything inaccurate. I'm not aware of her having lost in court with regards to her book on Tariq Ramadan. Both were serious books, and again she's done valuable work on religious extremists, in particular coming from the Catholic church.
There has been plenty of double standard regarding Dieudonné. While today he is a pretty sad figure who lost itself into stupid complotism and antisemitism, he has been declared persona non grata in the media for some sketch that, while pretty silly, was not antisemite at all (and he won his case in court back then). Since then, the cabale that the media put on him, resulting in the prime minister himself basically forcing the court to forbid him from playing his part was clearly overreacting. The Siné affair was exactly the same situation.
In fact, It's exactly like Hara-Kiri in it's time with its cover on De Gaulle : a joke, a pretty bad one, but neither racist nor hainous.
And Fourest is not a specialist in anything. She's just known for some shitty book, and she's done no valuable work - do you think Fourest is actually quoted in any real work on social sciences ? In fact, real researcher in social sciences tend to dislike her work for its lack of rigor and the blatant lie she tend to commit (there is even a book from Boniface, who is a real researcher in geopolitics, who talk about Fourest's work for one entire chapter and call her a serial-liar, nothing less). Let's be a little objective about it, Fourest's work has the same value as Bernard Henry-Levy's (and they are pretty close too, it's Henry Levy who found her her first job... LOL valuable work my ass), it's shit publicized by the media, nothing else.
She was condemned for her first book in 1998 for a book on the national front, forced to change parts of her book "Brother Tariq" on Tariq Ramadan for obvious lies and false informations, condemned again in 2012 and 2014, for her work on Marine Le Pen and for her denial of an islamophobic agression of a muslim woman. The CSA itself asked her to fact-check her informations after spouting some nonsense regarding the death of three Ukrainian officers. Valuable work ? That's not how you do social sciences, there's a little of rigor needed. I have a little more respect for real social science than that. In any other field, and if she was hitting on any other community, she would have been laid off after any of those verdict - but thank god it's the media !
You can disagree, but don't make it seem like you have some kind of objective and unquestionable knowledge on the subject.
|
Doesn't anyone else think that religion isn't the main issue here? It just seems more like an easy to grasp justification for terrorist acts, when in reality the social and economic problems people are having give them the drive to lash out against something (whatever it may be, and through whatever ideology) they see as evil.
Also @mcc i think you are wrong if you believe that religion is becoming less important on a global scale. even in europe we have this tendency towards fundamentalist christianity as counter movement to a perceived danger through islamization. Even Merkel told germans recently that they should be more self confident when talking about their christian values and to increase their knowledge about christianity. (german newspaper source: http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-01/angela-merkel-christentum-islam-islamisierung )
|
On January 17 2015 21:33 Noizhende wrote:Doesn't anyone else think that religion isn't the main issue here? It just seems more like an easy to grasp justification for terrorist acts, when in reality the social and economic problems people are having give them the drive to lash out against something (whatever it may be, and through whatever ideology) they see as evil.Also @mcc i think you are wrong if you believe that religion is becoming less important on a global scale. even in europe we have this tendency towards fundamentalist christianity as counter movement to a perceived danger through islamization. Even Merkel told germans recently that they should be more self confident when talking about their christian values and to increase their knowledge about christianity. (german newspaper source: http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-01/angela-merkel-christentum-islam-islamisierung )
Religion is not the main issue at all. The ethnicisation and racialisation of all political question nowadays is a complete failure that enlight the saddening disappearance of any socialist perspective (and by socialist I mean the systematic critic of the capitalism, and not the shitty socialist party).
|
On January 17 2015 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 21:33 Noizhende wrote:Doesn't anyone else think that religion isn't the main issue here? It just seems more like an easy to grasp justification for terrorist acts, when in reality the social and economic problems people are having give them the drive to lash out against something (whatever it may be, and through whatever ideology) they see as evil.Also @mcc i think you are wrong if you believe that religion is becoming less important on a global scale. even in europe we have this tendency towards fundamentalist christianity as counter movement to a perceived danger through islamization. Even Merkel told germans recently that they should be more self confident when talking about their christian values and to increase their knowledge about christianity. (german newspaper source: http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-01/angela-merkel-christentum-islam-islamisierung ) Religion is not the main issue at all. The ethnicisation and racialisation of all political question nowadays is a complete failure that enlight the saddening disappearance of any socialist perspective (and by socialist I mean the systematic critic of the capitalism, and not the shitty socialist party).
Exactly, ty! Current european socialist parties have completely lost their way, their ideas, gave up their role in public debate, ended up in system conformity and lethargy. That's one of the reasons why we are not having a debate about the issues, but only a debate about symptoms, leaving a broad field for extremists/populists to spread their bullshit ideologies.
I really can't emphasize enough that this incident would be the perfect opportunity for parties to point at the social problems the direction our economic system is developing in will give rise to, but i hear nothing from the parties, which should have an agenda (looking at their names) to point in this direction. Do they think that this is too complex for the voters, or do they think that this couldn't possibly be an issue? (social democrats not thinking that there are social issues involved when something wrong is happening! i don't even...)
Ok, to be fair the socialists aren't to blame alone, the whole political landscape has become a bad joke. We need to create a constructive discussion seeking to highlight all the different influences that lead up to current events and prevent power hungry populists from taking over the debate with their black and white views.
The problem is that censorship of these populist views will most likely increase their popularity since it's easy for them to play the poor victim of oppression and sole upholder of freedom of speech if you forbid them their slander. (just compare with jörg haider's career)
|
On January 17 2015 21:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 09:59 kwizach wrote:On January 17 2015 08:30 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 08:26 kwizach wrote:On January 17 2015 08:09 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 07:28 kwizach wrote:On January 17 2015 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 05:50 kwizach wrote:On January 17 2015 04:50 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 03:48 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Both of you are completely failing to understand the difference between Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo. The difference was made clear by Acertos but I'll explain it again.
Dieudonné attacks religious people, namely Jews (for being Jews). He is clearly anti-semitic, has made anti-semitic statements, and has been condemned for them.
Charlie Hebdo does not attack or criticize religious people. It does not attack Jews, it does not attack Muslims, it does not attack Christians (and it does not attack Arabs either, contrary to what you said). What Charlie Hebdo does is attack all religious extremists (not religious people in general) and criticize all religions and religious symbols (again, not religious people). Criticizing religions for the systems of beliefs they are, and mocking religious institutions and religious symbols for various reasons (for example for the Pope's stance on condoms), is not the same as attacking the religious people themselves. You're attacking ideas, institutions and figures of authority, NOT religious people as a group.
This is an important distinction and it explains why Dieudonné has been condemned for anti-semitism/incitement to racial hatred while Charlie Hebdo has not (its condemnations were usually for having insulted individuals). Charlie Hebdo is an antiracist publication which has never promoted the type of hate-speech that Dieudonné is well-known for. To the contrary, its cartoons ridicule hate speech and they use right-wing imagery to mock it and denounce it those right-wing ideas.
[quote]
WIth regards to the matter at hand, namely Charlie Hebdo and French law, there is absolutely no double standard, no. If you promote hate speech by targeting groups of people you get condemned. If you criticize religions, you don't. It's the same for everyone. It's untrue. Some of Charlie's caricature were insulting - the coran is "shit" for exemple, or the one where all the black pregnant women saying "Don't touch our allocations !" (it's just racist plain and simple). I'm personally completly OKAY with those, and they didn't create any fuss in the media (aside from some specific extremist group), because, let's say it, spitting on the muslim "community" or the dominated class of our society is less "important" to our elites than any insult toward the jewish community (look at the Sine's affair, the chronique he was fired for was not antisemite at all, but it create a huge fuss in the media). Charlie was more or less equal, but don't tell me there's no double standard in the media. Completely false on both counts. The "Le Coran c'est de la merde, ça n'arrête pas les balles" cover denounced the slaughter of unarmed Muslim partisans of Morsi by the Egyptian military. The point of the drawing is to show that the dead had nothing to protect themselves but the Quran. There is absolutely nothing racist about the cartoon, which precisely condemned the atrocities in Egypt perpetrated by the military. The cover with the black pregnant women saying "Don't touch our allocations!" combines two different news stories of the time: a reduction in allocations in France and the crimes of Boko Haram against women, including stories of kidnapping and of rape. The aim of the cover is to denounce and mock right-wing fantasies about foreigners coming to France to "steal" from the French social system - including the scarecrow often used by the right of foreign mothers coming to France to give birth on French soil. They were therefore ridiculing right-wing fantasies, not endorsing them. Nothing about these drawings was attacking Muslims as religious people - one served to denounce atrocities perpetrated against Muslims, and the other served to denounce right-wing fantasies about immigrants, including Muslims. To think they were "racist" is to utterly misunderstand them. Again, Charlie Hebdo never "spit" on the Muslim community or on any other religious community - it criticized religions, not religious groups of people (except extremists, from every religion). Siné was fired because of putting forward the idea that Jean Sarkozy became a Jew and married a Jewish woman for personal profit. It can very well be argued that what he wrote had antisemitic undertones (i.e. it was aimed at Jews themselves), which is why the decision to fire him was made. Siné was cleared by the courts, but it doesn't change the fact that the reasoning for firing him was that it was felt by those who took the decision that he was aiming at a religious group of people as such, contrary to what the journal does. There is no double standard. I'm amazed. How can you think implying that all black and muslim women makes babies for allocations is not racist, but saying that he converted to judaism in order to marry his jewish wife, who is also the heir of the Darty familly, is antisemite. You can contextualize all you want, there is nothing in the caricature that imply it is a jab at right wing extremism (which is the reason why the caricature created an outrage in the far left), just like saying "the coran is shit", whatever the context, is clearly a global view on islam (just like drawing a bomb in Mohammed's turban is implying islam is terrorist by essence). Again, I find all that completly OK (I'm for a total freedom of press), and I am not at all saying Charlie is biased (Charb was a hero to me), but the public outrage that followed Siné's small text shows a lot on how the media and our society view all these events. I just explained to you why both covers that you mentioned were absolutely not aimed at Muslims. The cover with the Muslim women asking for allocations was, as I just said, to ridicule ring-wing fantasies on the topic, not to actually imply that Muslim women really do make babies for allocations. It almost only created an "outrage" among those who did not understand the cover because they probably don't read the journal. The same goes for the cover with the Muslim with the Quran getting shot, which condemned the Egyptian military for the massacre and not the Muslims who got killed. There is nothing racist about either message - all you need to do is understand how the cartoons work and what they mean. On January 17 2015 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:
Even in Charlie, many people clearly stated that Charlie under Philippe Val was biased (even people who actually work/worked in Charlie : Tignous was one of them, so was Delfeil de Ton or Olivier Cyran) and believed attacking the muslim was non pertinent. Putting that aside, in the media it is pretty obvious that there is a double standard : Eric Zemmour, Houellebecq, Finkelkraut, Fourest or Malka are all always invited and well known for some curious comment. If Houellebecq last book pictured a society with a jewish government, everybody would have instantly called it antisemite. Somehow, implying France is overrun by muslim give you open access to all medias. There is a difference between being too alarmist about extremists and being actually racist against the entire Muslim population. There was no anti-Muslims racism whatsoever at Charlie Hebdo. I despise Zemmour but he's been condemned for hate speech before and the double standard we were talking about was from the legal point-of-view. People get condemned when they preach hate against a religious, "ethnic" group or skin color, not when their target is a religion. Dieudonné could say the same exact thing. What does he mean by Shoananas ? (He argued in court that it just about "hot ananas") By Charlie Coulibaly ? By the first sketch he had that made all this fuss ? If Dieudonné says "I said Charlie Coulibaly" to caricature the islamist extremists" does it work ? On this specific caricature, there are no reference to right wing extremist. At least, it's pretty bad caricature. No, if you take a look at the specific cases where Dieudonné got condemned, he was clearly targeting Jews as religious people. Again, that has never been the case of Charlie Hebdo, for any group of religious people. Honestly, I'm not sure how you're still not understanding the difference between targeting religion/religious institutions/religious symbols and targeting religious people. In the two covers you mentioned, the targets were respectively the (far) right wing trying to demonize the figure of the immigrant in France, and the Egyptian military. Neither targeted Muslims. The fact that you didn't understand the covers does not mean that they were racist. On January 17 2015 08:09 WhiteDog wrote:
The problem is not really that they are condemned, it is that despite the condamnation they are still there in the media giving their point of view on everything - like Fourest who got condemn for diffamation several times. If you agree that there is no double standard from the legal point of view, that's already something. Fourest is an intellectual who's done very valuable work on both the far right and on religious extremists, and I don't see why she should not be invited on these topics. I never said there was any double standard from the legal point of view ! Here is my first sentence : "Charlie was more or less equal, but don't tell me there's no double standard in the media." Actually one of the main problem we have with kids in 93 is that they barely ever know about the legal point of view on those things because the media rarely publicize the result : the time of the media and the time of the justice system are entirely different, and following the first makes you believe the society as a whole is biased. Your first claim of a "double standard" was in reply to someone mentioning Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo. There is no double standard with respect to how the two are treated both legally and in the media, as I explained. On January 17 2015 08:30 WhiteDog wrote:
Fourest did very valuable work ? LOL Please. She's a liar nothing more. "Working" in social science needs some kind of epistemology and rigor, she have none of those. Most of the book she wrote got condemned for diffamation (on Le Pen and on Ramadan for exemple). Not "most of the books she wrote", no. She lost in court with respect to the Le Pen book largely for mentioning private details and drawing generalizations to the FN for things which should have been attributed to the Le Pen family members, not for anything inaccurate. I'm not aware of her having lost in court with regards to her book on Tariq Ramadan. Both were serious books, and again she's done valuable work on religious extremists, in particular coming from the Catholic church. There has been plenty of double standard regarding Dieudonné. While today he is a pretty sad figure who lost itself into stupid complotism and antisemitism, he has been declared persona non grata in the media for some sketch that, while pretty silly, was not antisemite at all (and he won his case in court back then). Since then, the cabale that the media put on him, resulting in the prime minister himself basically forcing the court to forbid him from playing his part was clearly overreacting. The Siné affair was exactly the same situation. In fact, It's exactly like Hara-Kiri in it's time with its cover on De Gaulle : a joke, a pretty bad one, but neither racist nor hainous.
That is far from how it happened. He had already made controversial comments before the sketch you're referring to, including one which led to him being condemned in court several years later, and was still being invited in the media. After he did the sketch you mention which very clearly had problematic undertones (his association of Israelis with Nazis), despite not being condemned in court, he was less welcome in some places but was still supported by many in the media and kept making appearances on several shows. It is what happened in the following year which led people to progressively move away from him because his antisemitism became more and more obvious, starting with a declaration he made a few weeks after the sketch in question and which did get him condemned for incitement to racial/religious hatred. Please do not attempt to present him as a victim - he dug his own hole through his blatant antisemitism which ended up making him a persona non grata, and rightly so. And it took some time.
The Siné affair has absolutely nothing to do with Dieudonné. I already explained what happened in that case and why it's completely different from the anti-religion caricatures of Charlie Hebdo. Nothing about his firing points to a double standard.
On January 17 2015 21:29 WhiteDog wrote:
And Fourest is not a specialist in anything. She's just known for some shitty book, and she's done no valuable work - do you think Fourest is actually quoted in any real work on social sciences ? In fact, real researcher in social sciences tend to dislike her work for its lack of rigor and the blatant lie she tend to commit (there is even a book from Boniface, who is a real researcher in geopolitics, who talk about Fourest's work for one entire chapter and call her a serial-liar, nothing less). Let's be a little objective about it, Fourest's work has the same value as Bernard Henry-Levy's (and they are pretty close too, it's Henry Levy who found her her first job... LOL valuable work my ass), it's shit publicized by the media, nothing else.
She was condemned for her first book in 1998, forced to chance parts of her book "Brother Tariq" on Tariq Ramadan for obvious lies and false informations, condemned again in 2012 and 2014, for her work on Marine Le Pen and for her point of view regarding the islamophobic agression of a muslim woman. The CSA itself asked her to fact-check her informations after spouting some nonsense regarding the death of three Ukrainian officers. Valuable work ? That's not how you do social sciences, there's a little of rigor needed. I have a little more respect for real social science than that. In any other field, and if she was hitting on any other community, she would have been laid off after any of those verdict - but thank god it's the media !
Caroline Fourest is not a social scientist and doesn't pretend to be doing social science. She's a journalist doing journalism, and usually doing a fine job at that - see the accolades and prizes some of her books have won. The condemnation for her 1998 book on the FN came because the accurate information she included in the book about a company funding the FN and/or far right groups was determined in court to be damageable to the company's name, not because it was inaccurate. Again, the same goes for her more recent book on Marine Le Pen, as I just explained. I'm not aware of any condemnations for her book "Brother Tariq" (which may have contained some inaccuracies but was still a detailed analysis of Tariq Ramadan's political positions and discourse).
I'm amazed that you think Pascal Boniface's book "Les intellectuels faussaires" is in any way, shape or form even remotely close to an example of scientific rigor. That book is nothing else than Boniface settling scores with people he doesn't like, sometimes because he lost in court against them in the past and wants to get back at them. It is basically a mix of misinformation, intellectual dishonesty (out-of-context and misleading quotes abound) and petty revenge, without the slightest hint of scientific rigor. What a laugh.
I certainly don't always agree with Fourest or think that her journalistic work is devoid of criticism, but to mention her as an example of a double-standard in the media is outright ridiculous.
On January 17 2015 21:29 WhiteDog wrote:
You can disagree, but don't make it seem like you have some kind of objective and unquestionable knowledge on the subject.
...Remind me who started one of his completely subjective and clearly biased sentences against Fourest's work by "Let's be a little objective about it"?
Anyway, since discussing Fourest and Dieudonné individually is clearly getting off-topic, you can send me a PM if you'd like to continue this conversation.
|
You re a joke. Getting a prize means nothing, especially when specialists of the discipline are against it. Social scientist do work on a topic, journalists unveil informations which is entirely different - and it is not what Fourest is doing. But I see how well socialized you are, when three condamnation for diffamation and various specialists putting in question her good will is a minor problem. There is a "ce soir ou jamais" where, facing Tariq she showed not only a blatant lack of rigor but also a tendency for lies - misquoting or cutting sentences halfway. Boniface's book is a pamphlet, who has no rigor, but coming from someone who proved itself : but did you read it ?
Also, Fourest is not journalist, she is militant.
One of my most favorite book is LTI from Viktor Klemperer - a german jew who lived under the nazi regime. In this book he himself compare Mein Kampf to sionist book (mostly Herlz). Is it antisemite too ? He also affirm that zionist and nazi have the same ideology of "perverted romantism" - and note that it is not humor.
|
Fourest is a joke obviously. She's all lies and disinformation, but doing it against the good kind of people (in her case arabs and catholics) makes you a "star", invited by all medias. Like with her mentor BHL, you can be sure to be right about any topic just by thinking the opposite of her.
And now we're arguing there is no double standard, soon we'll argue about the color of the sky ?
|
On January 18 2015 05:27 WhiteDog wrote:
You re a joke. Getting a prize means nothing, especially when specialists of the discipline are against it. Social scientist do work on a topic, journalists unveil informations which is entirely different - and it is not what Fourest is doing. But I see how well socialized you are, when three condamnation for diffamation and various specialists putting in question her good will is a minor problem. There is a "ce soir ou jamais" where, facing Tariq she showed not only a blatant lack of rigor but also a tendency for lies - misquoting or cutting sentences halfway. Boniface's book is a pamphlet, who has no rigor, but coming from someone who proved itself : but did you read it ?
Also, Fourest is not journalist, she is militant.
"Specialists of the discipline" were not "against" Fourest's book for which she was awarded the "Prix du livre politique de l'Assemblée nationale" - first because it's not a social science book, meaning it is part of no discipline as such, but also because it was well-received. She is both a journalist (and certainly DOES "unveil information" on several topics, in particular the French far right, but it doesn't look like you've actually ever read her) and a militant - the two are not antithetical. She's not a social scientist and doesn't claim to be.
I addressed the condemnations you mentioned - she was mostly condemned not for making inaccurate claims but for revealing information that was private or damaging, meaning that the condemnations were not at all a statement on the quality of her research.
I saw the "Ce soir ou jamais" show, I read the book and I read Ramadan's responses. Contrary to what you're saying, he's the one whose rebuttals focus on small details to discredit the entire book, which analyzes clearly and accurately the positions and discourses of Ramadan. It is indeed also a militant book, since Fourest is clearly opposed to his ideology, but there is nevertheless a real effort to look into Ramadan's views and shifting discourses based on his audience.
Finally, saying that Boniface is someone who "proved itself" (sic) is very ignorant of his motivations behind the book and the actual contents of the book (yes, I read several chapters). Again, it is a book made to attack people against whom (for the most part at least) he had personal grudges and scores to settle (see his precedent in court against Mohamed Sifaoui which Boniface happened to lose - yes, you could tell he was going to be totally objective in his treatment of the guy he lost to in court). There is no intellectual honesty whatsoever, quotes are taken out-of-context, etc. If you take his book seriously, that tells a lot more about you than it does Fourest. Also, I invite you to take a look at Libération's recent inquiry into the funding of several French think tanks and institutes - perhaps you'll find Boniface's reaction to the inquiry interesting.
Again, I'm not particularly a fan of Fourest and there are plenty of topics on which I'm critical of her positions or her work, but to use her to talk about a double standard is utterly ridiculous.
On January 18 2015 05:27 WhiteDog wrote:
One of my most favorite book is LTI from Viktor Klemperer - a german jew who lived under the nazi regime. In this book he himself compare Mein Kampf to sionist book (mostly Herlz). Is it antisemite too ? He also affirm that zionist and nazi have the same ideology of "perverted romantism" - and note that it is not humor.
I'm not interested in discussing your completely irrelevant comparison. Dieudonné had already been making controversial comments about Jews prior to the sketch, and he made much worse comments (for which he was condemned for racial/religious hatred, like I said) just weeks after it. He was progressively less and less invited in the media as his blatant antisemitism became more and more salient.
|
As one of Polish leading politician said:
"If those offended Muslims came in to the office of Charlie Hebdo and wanted to do justice - by blocking the venue, then after few hours taking all of the illustrators, putting their assess - literally - in the front window and publicly giving 10 strikes with wooden rod to the ass, then releasing prisoners unharmed - all the world would applaud those men's effort to protect what they believe to be sacred.
However, given the current sad state of events, I'd like to remind you that not every killer should be hanged. [note: he is a pro death penalty liberal]
Some killers, like the ones responsible for this inhuman attack, should be chopped into pieces alive and then be thrown to the pigpen."
Pretty much nothing else to add here, right?
|
Basically, Dieudonné, a franco-camerounese black comedian, married to a white french girl, having been in a duo with a jew comedian for 10 years, is somehow the symbol of racism in France.
All the rich white people who trash arabs and islam all day long in their magazines say it, and if they say it it must be true.
This is literally 1984, there is a quote from Malcolm X (I think) that say something like “If you're not careful, the medias will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
He was pretty good at seeing the future.
|
So the arguments rich white people make are wrong because they're rich and white but the black comedian can't be a racist because he's black...? You have to decide if you allow ad hominems or not, both using and condemning them in the same post is not going to work out
|
On January 18 2015 07:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2015 05:27 WhiteDog wrote:
You re a joke. Getting a prize means nothing, especially when specialists of the discipline are against it. Social scientist do work on a topic, journalists unveil informations which is entirely different - and it is not what Fourest is doing. But I see how well socialized you are, when three condamnation for diffamation and various specialists putting in question her good will is a minor problem. There is a "ce soir ou jamais" where, facing Tariq she showed not only a blatant lack of rigor but also a tendency for lies - misquoting or cutting sentences halfway. Boniface's book is a pamphlet, who has no rigor, but coming from someone who proved itself : but did you read it ?
Also, Fourest is not journalist, she is militant. I saw the "Ce soir ou jamais" show, I read the book and I read Ramadan's responses. Contrary to what you're saying, he's the one whose rebuttals focus on small details to discredit the entire book, which analyzes clearly and accurately the positions and discourses of Ramadan. It is indeed also a militant book, since Fourest is clearly opposed to his ideology, but there is nevertheless a real effort to look into Ramadan's views and shifting discourses based on his audience.
Be specific please.
|
No, it's completely off-topic and I'm frankly not interested in defending Fourest in any case - the point was that she's certainly not someone you can point to in order to argue there's a double standard in the media. Just read the book if you're interested.
@Nyxisto: Dieudonné has been condemned by the courts repeatedly for blatantly antisemitic statements, but in MrCon's world it's all a conspiracy by "the media" and "rich white people".
|
On January 18 2015 12:49 kwizach wrote:
No, it's completely off-topic and I'm frankly not interested in defending Fourest in any case - the point was that she's certainly not someone you can point to in order to argue there's a double standard in the media. Just read the book if you're interested.
@Nyxisto: Dieudonné has been condemned by the courts repeatedly for blatantly antisemitic statements, but in MrCon's world it's all a conspiracy by "the media" and "rich white people".
Well can you please PM it to me?
|
On January 18 2015 08:24 MrCon wrote:
Basically, Dieudonné, a franco-camerounese black comedian, married to a white french girl, having been in a duo with a jew comedian for 10 years, is somehow the symbol of racism in France.
All the rich white people who trash arabs and islam all day long in their magazines say it, and if they say it it must be true.
This is literally 1984, there is a quote from Malcolm X (I think) that say something like “If you're not careful, the medias will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
He was pretty good at seeing the future.
Dieudonné, he is the guy who is best mate with Soral and even tried to create a party with him? Soral, you know, the little nazi guy from the Egalité et Reconciliation fascist band.
And you will make me believe that he has no problems with jews. Hahahaha. He had stopped his duo with Semoun since a long time when he became the racist bigot inflammatory moron he is now.
|
On January 18 2015 07:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2015 05:27 WhiteDog wrote:
You re a joke. Getting a prize means nothing, especially when specialists of the discipline are against it. Social scientist do work on a topic, journalists unveil informations which is entirely different - and it is not what Fourest is doing. But I see how well socialized you are, when three condamnation for diffamation and various specialists putting in question her good will is a minor problem. There is a "ce soir ou jamais" where, facing Tariq she showed not only a blatant lack of rigor but also a tendency for lies - misquoting or cutting sentences halfway. Boniface's book is a pamphlet, who has no rigor, but coming from someone who proved itself : but did you read it ?
Also, Fourest is not journalist, she is militant. "Specialists of the discipline" were not "against" Fourest's book for which she was awarded the "Prix du livre politique de l'Assemblée nationale" - first because it's not a social science book, meaning it is part of no discipline as such, but also because it was well-received. She is both a journalist (and certainly DOES "unveil information" on several topics, in particular the French far right, but it doesn't look like you've actually ever read her) and a militant - the two are not antithetical. She's not a social scientist and doesn't claim to be. I addressed the condemnations you mentioned - she was mostly condemned not for making inaccurate claims but for revealing information that was private or damaging, meaning that the condemnations were not at all a statement on the quality of her research. I saw the "Ce soir ou jamais" show, I read the book and I read Ramadan's responses. Contrary to what you're saying, he's the one whose rebuttals focus on small details to discredit the entire book, which analyzes clearly and accurately the positions and discourses of Ramadan. It is indeed also a militant book, since Fourest is clearly opposed to his ideology, but there is nevertheless a real effort to look into Ramadan's views and shifting discourses based on his audience. Finally, saying that Boniface is someone who "proved itself" (sic) is very ignorant of his motivations behind the book and the actual contents of the book (yes, I read several chapters). Again, it is a book made to attack people against whom (for the most part at least) he had personal grudges and scores to settle (see his precedent in court against Mohamed Sifaoui which Boniface happened to lose - yes, you could tell he was going to be totally objective in his treatment of the guy he lost to in court). There is no intellectual honesty whatsoever, quotes are taken out-of-context, etc. If you take his book seriously, that tells a lot more about you than it does Fourest. Also, I invite you to take a look at Libération's recent inquiry into the funding of several French think tanks and institutes - perhaps you'll find Boniface's reaction to the inquiry interesting. Again, I'm not particularly a fan of Fourest and there are plenty of topics on which I'm critical of her positions or her work, but to use her to talk about a double standard is utterly ridiculous. Show nested quote +On January 18 2015 05:27 WhiteDog wrote:
One of my most favorite book is LTI from Viktor Klemperer - a german jew who lived under the nazi regime. In this book he himself compare Mein Kampf to sionist book (mostly Herlz). Is it antisemite too ? He also affirm that zionist and nazi have the same ideology of "perverted romantism" - and note that it is not humor. I'm not interested in discussing your completely irrelevant comparison. Dieudonné had already been making controversial comments about Jews prior to the sketch, and he made much worse comments (for which he was condemned for racial/religious hatred, like I said) just weeks after it. He was progressively less and less invited in the media as his blatant antisemitism became more and more salient.
You are just the pure expression of the double standard. You are carefully putting aside the fact that Fourest is not a simple journalist, but someone who always give her opinion on specific subject (she define herself as engaged on some specific topic), her lack of rigor, pointed out by the CSA (how many journalist have warning from the CSA directly pointed at them and not at a paper ? Fourest, Zemmour, who else ?). Specialist of religion and the "laïcité" - people who actually do work - did oppose giving the prize to Fourest (here for exemple). "La tentation obscurantiste" is not a journalist book, but labelled as an essay. Her "work" is a political act, pro "choice", LGTB and whatever, and nothing more than that, closer to the pamphlet than any form of journalism - which is exactly what Dieudonné has been doing at first. Even your critic of Ramadan's critic is poor (you did not saw the same emission as I did, or maybe it is our eyes that differ). For those who read french and who want a quick and easy explanation of Fourest's way of "working", here is a small exposé of Fourest's "work" on - or against - Jean Ziegler (http://www.acrimed.org/article3119.html).
When you talk about the racist Dieudonné, the contextualization and the interpretation are nowhere to be found, and it's the simple knowledge of a condamnation and the fact that he made "controversial statement" that suffice to refuse him the right to speak and argue for his case.
I wonder if you ever read anything from Boniface in le monde diplomatique (by far the best newspaper still existing in France, with mediapart I'd say) - do you think he ever discuss Fourest or the parisian little world ? Your selective information is a good exemple of Fourest - and its group of people - state of mind. When it is about Fourest, again, you check not only the judgement, but argue the specifics (coincidently by using Fourest's arguments) of it - because she's from the "light" of the "left", and has the "moral" of "universalism" that shine on her ? - just like you are giving an interpretation of Charlie Hebdo's caricature ("it's not racist because they are criticizing the far right").
But when it's Boniface - or Dieudonné - the court ruling by itself suffice, and the core of his arguments are not only judged irrelevant but are eventually tainted. Can you tell me if Boniface has ever been accused of diffamation (even for his pamphlet) ? The answer is no (unlike Fourest), and now you're finding this case about the financing of the IRIS to discredit the man (which is funny considering what is the IRIS) - which is the same discursive tactics as to point out my fault of language (but I'm perfectly okay with that, my english vocabulary and grammatical skill is effectively a good way to judge the value of my arguments).
Again, it is a perfectly good exemple of the double standard. I've never valorized Dieudonné, I don't really care about him (an antisemite guy who lost itself in a pointless crusade), it's just amazing to see that some people can stay in the media despite condamnations and warnings, and that some other (despite no condamnation for Boniface) are always discredited and eventually silenced.
To get back on topic, and make the link, from Dieudonné to Fourest, passing by Zemmour or Houellebecq, we have a poor political field, and the young people "from the diversity" are perfectly aware of all that. Somehow, in their mind, siding with Dieudonné and antisemitism (and sexism and homophobia) is siding against the dominant and rotten part of our society (while in reality it is playing the same rigged game), that made its home in the media, and that is unable to give any moral and political justifications to their own feelings - which are, most of time, a desire for respect, dignity and fairness.
|
so is france racist or not, i still wonder.
|
On January 17 2015 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 21:33 Noizhende wrote:Doesn't anyone else think that religion isn't the main issue here? It just seems more like an easy to grasp justification for terrorist acts, when in reality the social and economic problems people are having give them the drive to lash out against something (whatever it may be, and through whatever ideology) they see as evil.Also @mcc i think you are wrong if you believe that religion is becoming less important on a global scale. even in europe we have this tendency towards fundamentalist christianity as counter movement to a perceived danger through islamization. Even Merkel told germans recently that they should be more self confident when talking about their christian values and to increase their knowledge about christianity. (german newspaper source: http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-01/angela-merkel-christentum-islam-islamisierung ) Religion is not the main issue at all. The ethnicisation and racialisation of all political question nowadays is a complete failure that enlight the saddening disappearance of any socialist perspective (and by socialist I mean the systematic critic of the capitalism, and not the shitty socialist party).
Muslim countries aren't particularly poor by world standards. It is religion, not poverty that is driving the violence. There are poor people of all religions in western countries but most of the homegrown terrorists are muslim. There is a huge problem of French citizens fighting for Isis then returning to France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
