Charlie Hebdo massacre - 2015-Jan-07 (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Maddy
- Start date
I think the message of forgiveness on the cover is truly radical. As radical as any fundamentalist imam.
It's a message of peace and redemption, and it's the perfect foil to a cult of death and brutally totalitarian religious dogma. That someone could publicly appeal to forgiveness under those circumstances is more hardcore, more a show of strength, and more mind-blowing than anything the terrorists could ever achieve.
It forces observers to choose which side are they on: the side of forgiveness, or the side of unforgiving murder?
You can imagine that terrorists behind the plot could only react to that message of forgiveness as radically alien as how a picture of Muhammed could incite murder to the Western world.
It's a message of peace and redemption, and it's the perfect foil to a cult of death and brutally totalitarian religious dogma. That someone could publicly appeal to forgiveness under those circumstances is more hardcore, more a show of strength, and more mind-blowing than anything the terrorists could ever achieve.
It forces observers to choose which side are they on: the side of forgiveness, or the side of unforgiving murder?
You can imagine that terrorists behind the plot could only react to that message of forgiveness as radically alien as how a picture of Muhammed could incite murder to the Western world.
Which is why it is also unfair and intellectually dishonest 
.
Because the world cannot be divided in two sides and this debate is nowhere near as easy as this message makes it seem.
.Because the world cannot be divided in two sides and this debate is nowhere near as easy as this message makes it seem.
)This is why political campaigns based on rationality rather than emotion are typically doomed to failure.
But grey doesn't motivate people. People are motivated when they see the world in black or white and have to decide. Even if it is just a veneer. Most people don't have the patience nor the will for intellectual honesty. (Let alone the capacity. )
This is why political campaigns based on rationality rather than emotion are typically doomed to failure.
)This is why political campaigns based on rationality rather than emotion are typically doomed to failure.
Charlie Hebdo was a marginalized and to many uninteresting magazine doomed to eventually go bankrupt. Suddenly they are our champions of free speech, our martyrs.
The usurpation of the attack by Islamophobes is already well underway in Germany by Pegida ("Patriotic Europeans against the islamification of the occident") btw. Which is interesting, seeing as the cartoonists and publicists of Charlie Hebdo do absolutely not advocate any form of such movements, and one of them even signed a letter condeming the way the massacre is utilized by Pegida (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=847981898600146&id=847889605276042). Still, during their protest marches yesterday, there were plenty of "Je suis Charlie" signs, and even pictures of the corpses of the murdered cartoonists. It's sad really.
i remember a study done once on a specific culture. cant remember which but i think they were some native american tribe. and the way they dealt with crimes like murder was to have the murderer confront the murdered family in a meeting(s). it was an interesting idea and the study concluded that this sort of metting(s) and trying to understand the motives did much better in rehabilitating the person into society than a typical prison sentence would have
Come on man, it's a two way thing. If the higher ups in the middle east weren't interested in making some of that mullah, then they wouldn't be dealing with the western world. Same thing @Seven if greedy individuals weren't easily tempted then Africa might've been looking different. It's never one set of individual's fault, never can be, cause these people need their plugs, they need to have some sort of accord with the "other" side where ever it may be. And "these western people" have off course people that oppose them, and seek the opposite, but hey, do you ask permission to do wrong?
@Maddy you filthy fuck, didn't sleep much cause of you, got me self evaluating myself and thinking about my choice of words and how I decided to express myself, and whether I really meant it. And me do, I do. I really do have lots of hate towards the western world, here, I'm nothing else but a token. Here, I feel that I am absolutely powerless in what I fiend for, peace back home. For fuck sakes, can't even get peace of mind. You can only get peace, when the ones around you, the loved ones, the distant ones have peace as well, and to get that peace, can't do it when the roots are bleeding, the roots need to be mended and healed. Do you have peace, Maddy?
Worse: it helps justify Israel's cruelty to a lot of people.
Wow. That this isn't known in some parts of the world suggests how information gets filtered, skewed, and manipulated elsewhere.
It's the message of forgiveness that's almost as much of a shocker as the image of the prophet himself (peace be upon him).
There's an English idiom called the "sacred cow". It is those things which are given mystical importance in one context, but are typically rather mundane and no reason for alarm or concern in other contexts. Like the cow in Hinduism: some may see the incarnation of the divine, and yet many others see, well, a cow.
Charlie Hebdo made its existence out of lampooning sacred cows the world over. Some are political cows, some are religious, some are social taboos that don't seem taboo-like at all from a different perspective.
To non-Muslims, the image of Muhammed is, well, like the cow to non-Hindus. Not a cow as in insulting someone, calling them a cow. But it registers nothing of significance as would, say, you seeing a bicycle. That something as mundane as an image of a bicycle could incite men to kill over it is a complete mind-fuck to much of the world. They don't get it, and to be honest they will never get it.
I do my best as a non-Muslim to understand why just a visual rendering of Muhammed is so insulting. I don't think I will ever understand it either unless I become a devout Muslim -- and even then it might not be the same because I wasn't born with that nor raised in that cultural environment where that was considered the norm. Something in my brain registers that this is something that might be perceived as hurtful by others, so don't forget that, but it's purely on an intellectual level -- a sort of need to enforce my own awareness of it, because for me it just doesn't register. I could walk past a poster on a wall of Muhammed and I simply wouldn't even notice it.
That might explain things just a little: it requires mindful effort for non-Muslims to sensitize ourselves, let alone even notice these things. Much as if you meet someone from El Salvador at a party, you mention the word "latino" as the word you always use in casual conversation, and he goes all ballistic on you every time you say "latino" because he's offended that you don't say "hispanic" instead. There's a lot to be said about cultural sensitivity and making others feel accepted. But how much do you tolerate from each and every person and each and every culture before that gets out of hand?
Now there's clearly a massive leap (and stick to the eye) from that to when you get to Charlie Hebdo. There are a lot of people who are (somewhat justifiably) fatigued with laundry lists of cultural sensitivities when no insult is even intended, like walking through a minefield. "Why am I such a horrible person just because I say the word 'latino'?" That sort of thing. So what you get with Charlie Hebdo are sophomoric pranksters who basically underscore these social absurdities by exaggerating them to the extreme. Partially in the hope that presenting them that way will make us less overly sensitive, though in their case they are also having a bit of fun at the expense of others who they see in power.
That last part is important: power. Many Muslims will lament they have no "power". But to feel rules that (from one cultural perspective) seem absurd, there is power in forcing people to change their behaviors for reasons that are essentially invisible to them. It's almost the power to intimidate. That's true about politicians, that's true about Jews and Israel, that's true about Christian figures, and that's true about Muslim extremists who kill if you disagree.
So Charlie Hebdo fights back with what it can against that power. The unfortunate part of that fight back is that Charlie Hebdo's actions are really directed at Muslim extremists -- the ones who would storm their doors and shoot them -- but that there's also collateral damage to every moderate and liberal Muslim as well. I can assure you, as much as you take offense as one is insulting your mother, you are not the primary intended target of their message or insults. Even though you feel offended as if it were personal.
Wow. That this isn't known in some parts of the world suggests how information gets filtered, skewed, and manipulated elsewhere.
It's the message of forgiveness that's almost as much of a shocker as the image of the prophet himself (peace be upon him).
There's an English idiom called the "sacred cow". It is those things which are given mystical importance in one context, but are typically rather mundane and no reason for alarm or concern in other contexts. Like the cow in Hinduism: some may see the incarnation of the divine, and yet many others see, well, a cow.
Charlie Hebdo made its existence out of lampooning sacred cows the world over. Some are political cows, some are religious, some are social taboos that don't seem taboo-like at all from a different perspective.
To non-Muslims, the image of Muhammed is, well, like the cow to non-Hindus. Not a cow as in insulting someone, calling them a cow. But it registers nothing of significance as would, say, you seeing a bicycle. That something as mundane as an image of a bicycle could incite men to kill over it is a complete mind-fuck to much of the world. They don't get it, and to be honest they will never get it.
I do my best as a non-Muslim to understand why just a visual rendering of Muhammed is so insulting. I don't think I will ever understand it either unless I become a devout Muslim -- and even then it might not be the same because I wasn't born with that nor raised in that cultural environment where that was considered the norm. Something in my brain registers that this is something that might be perceived as hurtful by others, so don't forget that, but it's purely on an intellectual level -- a sort of need to enforce my own awareness of it, because for me it just doesn't register. I could walk past a poster on a wall of Muhammed and I simply wouldn't even notice it.
That might explain things just a little: it requires mindful effort for non-Muslims to sensitize ourselves, let alone even notice these things. Much as if you meet someone from El Salvador at a party, you mention the word "latino" as the word you always use in casual conversation, and he goes all ballistic on you every time you say "latino" because he's offended that you don't say "hispanic" instead. There's a lot to be said about cultural sensitivity and making others feel accepted. But how much do you tolerate from each and every person and each and every culture before that gets out of hand?
Now there's clearly a massive leap (and stick to the eye) from that to when you get to Charlie Hebdo. There are a lot of people who are (somewhat justifiably) fatigued with laundry lists of cultural sensitivities when no insult is even intended, like walking through a minefield. "Why am I such a horrible person just because I say the word 'latino'?" That sort of thing. So what you get with Charlie Hebdo are sophomoric pranksters who basically underscore these social absurdities by exaggerating them to the extreme. Partially in the hope that presenting them that way will make us less overly sensitive, though in their case they are also having a bit of fun at the expense of others who they see in power.
That last part is important: power. Many Muslims will lament they have no "power". But to feel rules that (from one cultural perspective) seem absurd, there is power in forcing people to change their behaviors for reasons that are essentially invisible to them. It's almost the power to intimidate. That's true about politicians, that's true about Jews and Israel, that's true about Christian figures, and that's true about Muslim extremists who kill if you disagree.
So Charlie Hebdo fights back with what it can against that power. The unfortunate part of that fight back is that Charlie Hebdo's actions are really directed at Muslim extremists -- the ones who would storm their doors and shoot them -- but that there's also collateral damage to every moderate and liberal Muslim as well. I can assure you, as much as you take offense as one is insulting your mother, you are not the primary intended target of their message or insults. Even though you feel offended as if it were personal.
We offend 15% of the world's population all the time. None of us think twice about it.Come on man, the middle east evolve because of the oil? That's only one facet, the greatest economic boost they have ever had was because of the slave trade, they've made CRAZY fortunes off of that. The arabs ruled over half of Europe when in their full glory, Africa, ran riot all over Asia, these people are historic people, they've accomplished amazing things, but unfortunately this is a dark era for them. Oil, is only a thing of the recent present.
And please don't take it to heart, don't say shit like us, you're a civilian for fuck sakes, you have no say in any political decision, and if you believe you do, then maaaaaan you need a serious wake up call. The people and the heads of states aren't the same thing. Every set of people all over the world no matter what they pray to, language they speak, look like, they all want peace. nobody wants blood, but the ones that are greedy enough will draw blood to acquire qhat they want. From Ghengis Khan to Ottoman Caliphate, to Founding father of America to Siad Bare.
And please don't take it to heart, don't say shit like us, you're a civilian for fuck sakes, you have no say in any political decision, and if you believe you do, then maaaaaan you need a serious wake up call. The people and the heads of states aren't the same thing. Every set of people all over the world no matter what they pray to, language they speak, look like, they all want peace. nobody wants blood, but the ones that are greedy enough will draw blood to acquire qhat they want. From Ghengis Khan to Ottoman Caliphate, to Founding father of America to Siad Bare.
It's always sad to hear a story liek yours. In my eyes all humans deserve a safe and healthy upbringing with equal opportunity to reach their potential.
I have peace, my man. But it took me ten years to find it, albeit my struggle is a minor to yours, I still had to come to terms with soem things. One of the things that gave me peace was to accept that the Modern Western world of materialised happiness, money and a attractive degree wasn't my path to happiness.
Instead I chose to teach giving up a degree in Economics, a healthy ass pay-check and facing people thinking I went from the cradle to the grave.
Now I intent on teaching in communities in Copenhagen with many refugees and third world immigrants, where the kids struggle with "fitting in" into the Danish Society.
I've had a fairly "easy" life. Now it's time to give back.
Hold on, I'm just gonna go puke. 'cause that's soem emotional and cheesy bullshit. But hey man, that's how I feel.
What I would say to you; is do your best man and hopefully one day, you'll have the opportunity to help "your" people and those you care for and I do actually understand your situation. I used to be a volunteer in Danish Red Cross helping kids with their homework and to see the traumatised and helpless expression on the face of the parents destroyed by war made me realise the fortunate circumstances us Danes have by not facing war and so on.
We are soem who actually care for the third world without having wealth and power in mind.
I have peace, my man. But it took me ten years to find it, albeit my struggle is a minor to yours, I still had to come to terms with soem things. One of the things that gave me peace was to accept that the Modern Western world of materialised happiness, money and a attractive degree wasn't my path to happiness.
Instead I chose to teach giving up a degree in Economics, a healthy ass pay-check and facing people thinking I went from the cradle to the grave.
Now I intent on teaching in communities in Copenhagen with many refugees and third world immigrants, where the kids struggle with "fitting in" into the Danish Society.
I've had a fairly "easy" life. Now it's time to give back.
Hold on, I'm just gonna go puke. 'cause that's soem emotional and cheesy bullshit. But hey man, that's how I feel.
What I would say to you; is do your best man and hopefully one day, you'll have the opportunity to help "your" people and those you care for and I do actually understand your situation. I used to be a volunteer in Danish Red Cross helping kids with their homework and to see the traumatised and helpless expression on the face of the parents destroyed by war made me realise the fortunate circumstances us Danes have by not facing war and so on.
We are soem who actually care for the third world without having wealth and power in mind.
"Campaign" is just another word for having something to say and a reason behind saying it. Just as "politics" is often just how two people try to get along in order to accomplish things. They need not be anymore nefarious than that.
For Charlie Hebdo -- which I agree was a marginalized and most irrelevant (and irreverent) publication -- to abdicate its sudden social message, to not constructively capitalize on its world moment, seems wasteful at best. World events gave it a much bigger platform, not of its own choosing but because of its own tragedy, so I see nothing wrong with capitalizing on it for a little fundamentalist Islam counter-programming.
And yet the message of forgiveness on the cover of Charlie Hebdo speaks of the exact opposite. This, Seven, is what makes that powerful. They have a cache and credibility. I don't want to glorify Charlie Hedbo as any more than a rag of sophomoric humor, but they are thrust in a position of immense clout on the topic of freedom of speech right now. For them to come out and promote forgiveness is extremely potent.
Think of the credibility and cachet that Nelson Mandela had after he had been freed from prison and saw Apartheid fall. When he among anyone could have struck the justification for revenge -- resulting in what South Africans expected to be a bloody racial massacre -- he had the moral authority to instead say that it was time to forgive and move forward. What right do you have to take offense if Nelson f*ing Mandela can get over it?
That stroke alone literally saved perhaps millions of lives and so much potential misery.
At a societal rather than an individual level, that echoes what happened post-Apartheid in South Africa with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And there are dozens of countries who have successfully followed that model. Revenge killing ultimately begets more killing, so how to break the cycle?
For Charlie Hebdo -- which I agree was a marginalized and most irrelevant (and irreverent) publication -- to abdicate its sudden social message, to not constructively capitalize on its world moment, seems wasteful at best. World events gave it a much bigger platform, not of its own choosing but because of its own tragedy, so I see nothing wrong with capitalizing on it for a little fundamentalist Islam counter-programming.
And yet the message of forgiveness on the cover of Charlie Hebdo speaks of the exact opposite. This, Seven, is what makes that powerful. They have a cache and credibility. I don't want to glorify Charlie Hedbo as any more than a rag of sophomoric humor, but they are thrust in a position of immense clout on the topic of freedom of speech right now. For them to come out and promote forgiveness is extremely potent.
Think of the credibility and cachet that Nelson Mandela had after he had been freed from prison and saw Apartheid fall. When he among anyone could have struck the justification for revenge -- resulting in what South Africans expected to be a bloody racial massacre -- he had the moral authority to instead say that it was time to forgive and move forward. What right do you have to take offense if Nelson f*ing Mandela can get over it?
That stroke alone literally saved perhaps millions of lives and so much potential misery.
At a societal rather than an individual level, that echoes what happened post-Apartheid in South Africa with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And there are dozens of countries who have successfully followed that model. Revenge killing ultimately begets more killing, so how to break the cycle?
Well, I'm glad you found your way. Maybe we'll get to teach together someday shoulda mades BIG bucks first though
As for me what would make me happy is simple, peace. Just that. And if I can't get it, then I probably be selfish enough to buy a little patch of land, get a donkey, a cow, chickens, 3 dogs and lots of seeds (ganja seeds too) and isolate myself with nature and 1 or 2 other individual.
shoulda mades BIG bucks first though As for me what would make me happy is simple, peace. Just that. And if I can't get it, then I probably be selfish enough to buy a little patch of land, get a donkey, a cow, chickens, 3 dogs and lots of seeds (ganja seeds too) and isolate myself with nature and 1 or 2 other individual.
I'm tired of hearing it's the West's fault (not saying that you are saying it, but some members have). So, by your argument:
-Middle East made money by slave trade
-Middle East made money by conquering parts of Europe and their own expansion
-Middle East made money by selling oil & dealing with the West
It's also interesting, if I understand your argument correctly, which I may very well not, that by saying "The arabs ruled over half of Europe when in their full glory, Africa, ran riot all over Asia, these people are historic people, they've accomplished amazing things" you are giving positive recognition for expansion, yet smash France and western countries for it?
-Middle East made money by slave trade
-Middle East made money by conquering parts of Europe and their own expansion
-Middle East made money by selling oil & dealing with the West
It's also interesting, if I understand your argument correctly, which I may very well not, that by saying "The arabs ruled over half of Europe when in their full glory, Africa, ran riot all over Asia, these people are historic people, they've accomplished amazing things" you are giving positive recognition for expansion, yet smash France and western countries for it?