Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

[J842P]

Yes, sure the ideas are "nuts." But these are people indoctrinated into these ideas. They are merely acting rationally within that context. Their reasoning isn't faulty, although their ideas are. They aren't crazy, they are brain-washed.

Perhaps you just don't think that's a significant difference, but I do.

I see a predicate of rational action as scrutinizing one's beliefs. If one doesn't look with skepticism on their axioms, then they are irrational; minimizing and simplifying the axioms is a necessity.

You are speaking about some idealized philosopher's "rational," not the basic sense of "understands what they are doing," or as dismal put it: to fully understood the nature and implications of their actions. It's the opposite of delusional or psychotic i.e. "nuts."

 

[Unbeatable]

Yes, sure the ideas are "nuts." But these are people indoctrinated into these ideas. They are merely acting rationally within that context. Their reasoning isn't faulty, although their ideas are. They aren't crazy, they are brain-washed.

Perhaps you just don't think that's a significant difference, but I do.

Why do you think it's a significant difference? Is the difference in degree, or kind? When you use words like "crazy" and "nuts", are you referring exclusively to some sort of organic brain disorder endemic to the individual?

 

[Cycad]

The worst part of this is that Charlie Hebdo was a homophobic, racist, islamophobic rag deserving of scorn and derision. And now I find myself in the position of defending their right to print offensive, inflammatory trash.

Utter rubbish.

 

[Jarhyn]

I see a predicate of rational action as scrutinizing one's beliefs. If one doesn't look with skepticism on their axioms, then they are irrational; minimizing and simplifying the axioms is a necessity.

You are speaking about some idealized philosopher's "rational," not the basic sense of "understands what they are doing," or as dismal put it: to fully understood the nature and implications of their actions. It's the opposite of delusional or psychotic i.e. "nuts."

I have high expectations of people who would call themselves rational. A lower bar, 'reasonable', might apply to them, but rational means putting forward an honest attempt to continually remove contradictions in someone's life. Someone can be reasonable without being rational. understanding the nature of a person's actions assumes an understanding of the nature of beliefs which those are founded on, including the fact that they are only beliefs, founded on nothing but their apparent necessity. The ability to recognize that a simpler set of beliefs is sufficient is part of understanding nature, including the nature of a person's own actions

 

[J842P]

Yes, sure the ideas are "nuts." But these are people indoctrinated into these ideas. They are merely acting rationally within that context. Their reasoning isn't faulty, although their ideas are. They aren't crazy, they are brain-washed.

Perhaps you just don't think that's a significant difference, but I do.

Why do you think it's a significant difference? Is the difference in degree, or kind? When you use words like "crazy" and "nuts", are you referring exclusively to some sort of organic brain disorder endemic to the individual?

It is not merely a difference in degree but a difference in kind. Here's one difference: a person acting rationally could reasonably be expected to act in certain ways. Given their beliefs, one can predict how rational people are going to act.

Is anyone surprised that another cartoonist was targeted because of depicting Mohammed?

Given what we know about the ideology, motivations, and goals of Islamic terrorists, we could have reasonably inferred that they would have acted in this way.

A person acting irrationally will behave in an unpredictable manner given what their goals are.

 

[J842P]

You are speaking about some idealized philosopher's "rational," not the basic sense of "understands what they are doing," or as dismal put it: to fully understood the nature and implications of their actions. It's the opposite of delusional or psychotic i.e. "nuts."

I have high expectations of people who would call themselves rational. A lower bar, 'reasonable', might apply to them, but rational means putting forward an honest attempt to continually remove contradictions in someone's life. Someone can be reasonable without being rational. understanding the nature of a person's actions assumes an understanding of the nature of beliefs which those are founded on, including the fact that they are only beliefs, founded on nothing but their apparent necessity. The ability to recognize that a simpler set of beliefs is sufficient is part of understanding nature, including the nature of a person's own actions

Dude, you aren't talking about what I'm talking about then.

 

[dismal]

Well, at least it's not religious.

Why violence in response?

To avenge the prophet.

It's more than avenging the profit - it strikes at the heart of one of our core values - freedom of the press and freedom of expression

But that's not why they did it. The could strike at our core values by killing people who put on Tony Award winning plays mocking Mormons.

They do this because they're pissed that someone published cartoons about the prophet.

Can you document this? Was there a statement? Europe is awash in refuges from all the western triggered violence against Muslims in the ME. I could do as you do and guess you are probably right, but that kind of hatred is a little stronger than just "pissed off."

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

I based my comment on the widespread news reports that

1) they executed a bunch of cartoonists and publishers of cartoons about Muhammad
2) they were heard to shout "we have avenged the prophet" after doing it

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883

 

[dismal]

I see a predicate of rational action as scrutinizing one's beliefs. If one doesn't look with skepticism on their axioms, then they are irrational; minimizing and simplifying the axioms is a necessity.

You are speaking about some idealized philosopher's "rational," not the basic sense of "understands what they are doing," or as dismal put it: to fully understood the nature and implications of their actions. It's the opposite of delusional or psychotic i.e. "nuts."

It seems like defining people who have different values or beliefs than you do as "insane" is both the pinnacle of intolerance and far more dehumanizing of Muslims than anything the so called islamaphobics believe.

 

[J842P]

You are speaking about some idealized philosopher's "rational," not the basic sense of "understands what they are doing," or as dismal put it: to fully understood the nature and implications of their actions. It's the opposite of delusional or psychotic i.e. "nuts."

It seems like defining people who have different values or beliefs than you do as "insane" is both the pinnacle of intolerance and far more dehumanizing of Muslims than anything the so called islamaphobics believe.

I agree, actually. To be fair, it's not so much that people, generally progressive, liberal-minded people, say that Muslims are all crazy, but that the actions of Muslim terrorists are the result of "a few crazies." But this isn't the case.

Hitler, especially at the end, was acting irrationally. In his bunker, as Berlin was surrounded by the Soviets and Americans, he was giving fantastical orders to divisions that weren't there. Although this is an extreme example of irrationality resulting from delusions (or at the least extremely high stress), subtler instances of irrationality can arise due to common cognitive biases.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are speaking about some idealized philosopher's "rational," not the basic sense of "understands what they are doing," or as dismal put it: to fully understood the nature and implications of their actions. It's the opposite of delusional or psychotic i.e. "nuts."

It seems like defining people who have different values or beliefs than you do as "insane" is both the pinnacle of intolerance and far more dehumanizing of Muslims than anything the so called islamaphobics believe.

You're the one placing value judgements on all this, and calling them insane. I neither said, meant, nor intended to classify them as insane. I believe I even called them reasonable. Just not rational. it is ok to live in the world and be merely reasonable, to have a reason for one's actions and be willing to listen to others. But when even that much isn't met, when there can be no discussion, no challenge, and no skepticism whatsoever, that is neither rational or reasonable. That's neurotic, and it's intrinsically disordered. It's 'nuts'.

 

[Davka]

The worst part of this is that Charlie Hebdo was a homophobic, racist, islamophobic rag deserving of scorn and derision. And now I find myself in the position of defending their right to print offensive, inflammatory trash.

Utter rubbish.

Really?

Here’s what’s difficult to parse in the face of tragedy: yes, Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally,’ the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic.

Source, with some cartoons for your appraisal.

Racist depiction of Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens.

Yeah, they're pretty disgusting. But they have a right to be as disgusting as they want. Freedom of speech trumps offended people, every time.

 

[Jokodo]

Is this a good time to ask what is the maximum percentage of muslim country of origin that should be allowed in France?

It's never a good time for a bad question.

If say France eventually was 60% Muslim country of origin what would happen to the society and government?

Nothing. Being "Muslim country of origin" is not a meaningful indicator of political attitudes. Not even being Muslim necessarily is. The social and political attitudes of French Muslims as a group are much closer to those of French Non-Muslims than to those predominant in their (or their parents' or grandparents') countries of origin. While they may be lagging behind in some respects, they're actually moving away from traditional values faster than the mainstream French population.

For what it's worth, French Muslims are significantly more accepting of e.g. premarital sex than US Republicans. That may not be a high standard, but add to that a generational gap unlike anything seen in the mainstream population and it's pretty clear that even if France eventually became 60% "Muslim country of origin", this does not predict society and government much different from what countries which retain a overwhelmingly "Christian country of origin" population will experience.

There's no problem with a country becoming "60% Muslim country of origin" (whatever that even means), but a country with even just 1% militant islamists is in serious trouble. Isolating Muslims for attack is probably the best recipe to increase the number of those.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip> a formerly mostly christian (but forced to accept secularism) society <snip>

care to provide examples? The only societies I know that were, in any strong sense, "forced to accept secularism" are Albania and North Korea, both with their own ersatz-religions (even in other realsoc countries there was always some degree of tacit arrangement with (at least the dominant) religious communities) - and neither of these is "formerly mostly Christian" (Albania is mostly Muslim with a Christian minority of 20-30%, while in NK Christianity has always been insignificant).

 

[repoman]

American Christians has been forced to grudgingly accept secularism of law by my definition. You can do what you want on your own time, but your religious druthers mean nothing to anyone else, ideally. I think I did not state this in a clear way, sorry.

Blue states are better at this, while red state jackasses "zone" out abortion as an example.

 

[repoman]

I hope you are right about the current state of mainstream muslims and in general of 1st and 2nd and 3rd general muslim country of origin people. Such as I would be called a Christian because my grandfather is a christian, though I am an atheist.

I don't live there, so I don't know.

I get annoyed that partisans of "Muslims are really mellow about religion and lifestyle" or "Muslims are uptight, butthurt extremists" will cherry pick facts for their side.

 

[bilby]

This attack is more a mob hit than it is an act of terrorism.

The response to this should be to find and imprison the shooters, and the people who gave them their orders - just as we would respond to a Mafia killing spree.

 

[repoman]

The Mafia is about money and territory.

This is in the vein of Theo Van Gogh.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In the absence of events like this, I would discourage people from mocking and insulting Islam and Muslims the way this paper appears to do. But given events like this, I find it imperative that such mocking and insulting of Islam happens. When thugs try to stop you from doing X, the response should be to be defiant, and doing X becomes important. It shows that thuggery won't be effective.

 

[dx713]

Utter rubbish.

Really?

Here’s what’s difficult to parse in the face of tragedy: yes, Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally,’ the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic.

Source, with some cartoons for your appraisal.

Racist depiction of Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens.

Yeah, they're pretty disgusting. But they have a right to be as disgusting as they want. Freedom of speech trumps offended people, every time.

I believe you and the article writer don't understand French politics and French language enough.
This cover is a double snipe in classical Charlie style, both against Boko Haram and our right wing, NOT against the sex slaves or "welfare queens". To misunderstand that shows complete ignorance of French press and the left wing / anarchist tradition of Charlie.

 

[Deepak]

By way of Banksy

EDIT: Apparently this is the original source http://instagram.com/lucille_clerc/