Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Anyone else think Charlie Hebdo were provocative? Watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llpokerll)
    Does anyone share my views?
    Let's look at it this way: If someone had shot up Charlie Hebdo for cartoons depicting black people as monkeys, or hook nosed demonic Jews, or attacking gays, abuse victims or transgendered people or any other group offensively, would we be all saying "we're Charlie Hebdo"?


    It's a great example of complete lack of introspection and perspective on the west's part to be relieving CH entirely of all fault.

    The attacks were a tragedy and a outrageous crime, and nothing will absolve the gunmen, and I don;t believe anyone is actually trying to.


    It's just a sad observation that Islamic extremism is such a hot-button issue in the west that renders wide-scale abuse and all round ****ty attitudes towards Muslims as okay when if CH was attacking any other easily identifiable group through no fault of there own and stereotyping/generalising, people would be wagging fingers.


    except the xenophobic crew who use any excuse to attack others not of their immediate kin.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You shouldn't play with fire though
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It gets the people going
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Let's look at it this way: If someone had shot up Charlie Hebdo for cartoons depicting black people as monkeys, or hook nosed demonic Jews, or attacking gays, abuse victims or transgendered people or any other group offensively, would we be all saying "we're Charlie Hebdo"?
    Yes. Violence in response to cartoons is unacceptable in any circumstances.

    And your analogy is flawed. A more valid comparison would be Charlie Hebdo satirising Moses, which they probably have.

    It's a great example of complete lack of introspection and perspective on the west's part to be relieving CH entirely of all fault.
    The victim of murderers who killed because of cartoons can never be described as at fault.

    That's like saying that a woman who dresses provocatively and gets drunk is at fault because she is raped.

    The attacks were a tragedy and a outrageous crime, and nothing will absolve the gunmen, and I don;t believe anyone is actually trying to.
    You just did with your subtle victim-blaming.

    It's just a sad observation that Islamic extremism is such a hot-button issue in the west that renders wide-scale abuse and all round ****ty attitudes towards Muslims as okay when if CH was attacking any other easily identifiable group through no fault of there own and stereotyping/generalising, people would be wagging fingers.
    Err, Charlie Hebdo did precisely that (although I would take issue at your term "attack") and nothing happened. You're being grossly hyperbolic by saying it's an "attack" when they basically drew a cartoon of a long-dead historical figure and published it in their (then) obscure publication.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    WOOOAAA buddy, look at the facts. The MUSLIM/ISLAM leader is a preist that preaches peace and happiness.
    The TERRORIST leaders are over the top, fake muslims.
    • TSR Community Team
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Study Helper
    On the scale of good to evil I would say shooting innocent people is definitely at one end and publishing provocactive material that makes people think is nowhere near it.

    Yes they were provocative but that in no way, in any society, makes this crime even close to acceptable.

    Out of all recent terror attacks, this is one of the absolute worst for the sheer imbalance in the reason and the result.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent ninja)
    the murky business of true free speech
    lol :rolleyes:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    You just did with your subtle victim-blaming.
    "Hurr-dfurr you victim blame, me win my retarded argument."

    No friend, no you don't.

    We all have right to free speech, we also have responsibilities to abuse it to hate speech. This responsibility is actually enshrined in our law books.

    You can't accuse me of victim blaming when I am suggesting people stop making Muslims across the board victims of xenophobic abuse because some other Muslims did a bad thing. They are responsible for their criminal life taking, not all Muslims everywhere.

    Err, Charlie Hebdo did precisely that (although I would take issue at your term "attack") and nothing happened. You're being grossly hyperbolic by saying it's an "attack" when they basically drew a cartoon of a long-dead historical figure and published it in their (then) obscure publication.
    No, they did it to offend, and they suffered the consequences. Murder is murder, but if you antagonise you should expected someone eventually to snap and strike out.

    Again I don't care for Islam myself and murder is an outrageous response to antagonism, but the French themselves have the concept of 'crimes of passion' in their laws so they of all people should understand that people who are antagonised can resort to criminal acts. Still a crime, but recognizably different to unprovoked.


    The problem is that people aren't dealing with the actual issue of some murders here. It was very quickly turned into an echo-chamber across the world for anti-Muslim tripe, and about free speech. Well if people want to discuss free speech they need to face the uncomfortable fact that CH pushed the limits of it and shirked responsibility to not provoke responses. Because as an entity CH were effectively fishing. Trolling, that much maligned abuse of freedom of speech.




    In summary, yes murders bad, being an offensive **** trying to provoke people is also bad.

    You want to discuss the murders? Cool okay, four losers shot up easy targets and killed innocent people and now there are a good few families grieving for the lost, and Paris feels a little less safe this week.

    Oh wait discussion over, because after that everyone starts congratulating themselves on how enlightened and free they are (to abuse a broad group of people based on a label, congratulations you've really advanced the cause of western liberal ideals today).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    "Hurr-dfurr you victim blame, me win my retarded argument."

    No friend, no you don't.

    We all have right to free speech, we also have responsibilities to abuse it to hate speech. This responsibility is actually enshrined in our law books.

    You can't accuse me of victim blaming when I am suggesting people stop making Muslims across the board victims of xenophobic abuse because some other Muslims did a bad thing. They are responsible for their criminal life taking, not all Muslims everywhere.



    No, they did it to offend, and they suffered the consequences. Murder is murder, but if you antagonise you should expected someone eventually to snap and strike out.

    Again I don't care for Islam myself and murder is an outrageous response to antagonism, but the French themselves have the concept of 'crimes of passion' in their laws so they of all people should understand that people who are antagonised can resort to criminal acts. Still a crime, but recognizably different to unprovoked.


    The problem is that people aren't dealing with the actual issue of some murders here. It was very quickly turned into an echo-chamber across the world for anti-Muslim tripe, and about free speech. Well if people want to discuss free speech they need to face the uncomfortable fact that CH pushed the limits of it and shirked responsibility to not provoke responses. Because as an entity CH were effectively fishing. Trolling, that much maligned abuse of freedom of speech.




    In summary, yes murders bad, being an offensive **** trying to provoke people is also bad.

    You want to discuss the murders? Cool okay, four losers shot up easy targets and killed innocent people and now there are a good few families grieving for the lost, and Paris feels a little less safe this week.

    Oh wait discussion over, because after that everyone starts congratulating themselves on how enlightened and free they are (to abuse a broad group of people based on a label, congratulations you've really advanced the cause of western liberal ideals today).
    Your arguement has more holes than a polo mint factory.

    I was going to take issue with your point after the first couple of paragraphs until I realised if I pull you up on every bit of flawed logic I would have to spend the rest of the day typing.

    I just hope popular concensus never comes round to your way of thinking or we will be living in a society headed in a firmly distopian direction.

    Good luck developing your critical thinking skills!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)

    FYI, the Panorama documentary conveyed concern about non-violent extremism, NOT non-violent Muslims. Stop making things up.
    What on earth are you talking about woman. You are plucking straws

    These are the same thing when you give examples of conservative Muslims then say "even though theyre non-violent and aren't doing anything illegal , we disagree with their thinking and should change this via government legislation. " The government aren't allowed to tell you what to believe, what ideals to hold etc That's not their place. This is all so arbitrary. It's encroaching on freedoms OR DOES THIS NOT APPLY TO MUSLIms?

    So in a nutshell, a non violent Muslim is still considered a potential enemy of the state because of thought crimes. These muzzies can't do anything right
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent ninja)
    What on earth are you talking about woman. You are plucking straws

    These are the same thing when you give examples of conservative Muslims then say "even though theyre non-violent and aren't doing anything illegal , we disagree with their thinking and should change this via government legislation. " The government aren't allowed to tell you what to believe, what ideals to hold etc That's not their place. This is all so arbitrary. It's encroaching on freedoms OR DOES THIS NOT APPLY TO MUSLIms?

    So in a nutshell, a non violent Muslim is still considered a potential enemy of the state because of thought crimes. These muzzies can't do anything right
    What are you on about? Any new legislation will clearly be aimed at hate preachers whose rantings currently fall short of incitement laws. That's hardly thought crime.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think Chalie wanted to be provocative. It's just freedom of speech. It's part of democracy. It's the way of life in Europe.

    Anyone can be criticized, including God,Mohammad,or Buddha. That's illegal?

    The quran says " unbelievers are vile of animals." That's not provocative? Do you think non-Muslims like that or don't get angry?

    If Muslims don't like being criticized, why don't they just move away from Europe?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.