Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[Carbonox]

Ah, that's lovely, thanks for your contribution to whatever country you live in. Remember to hold on tight to that potato sack costume of yours and avoid talking to or even establishing contact with infidels, as your husband, brothers and dad may not appreciate it, and might fix your attitude with the old-fashioned method. But who am I to warn, you probably are already aware of all the nifty rules that you've been brainwashed into...

Seriously, I get this is supposed to be the "proper way to protest", but the genuinely false accusations like that are stepping over the line... Is this supposed to make the offended party look sensible at all? Even in my country we had a politician with Kurd background claiming that "Finland was digging blood from its nose" because the True Finns Party's youth organization had scheduled a satirical drawing competition...

 

[Joel]

potato sack costume of yours

👎👎👎👎

You're not doing yourself or your ideas any favours with this kind of garbage.

 

[Carbonox]

👎👎👎👎

You're not doing yourself or your ideas any favours with this kind of garbage.

So tell me, how is "ghost costume" OK, but "potato sack" not?

I also feel that it's not particularly unethical to direct my judgment at a piece of clothing that is basically a well-known symbol of oppression, but which is still being largely ignored by some apologists.

EDIT: Holy crap, guys, I was indeed in the wrong. Because potato sacks aren't black most of the time...

 

[Joel]

So tell me, how is "ghost costume" OK, but "potato sack" not?

Sorry I didn't read it particularly closely if you called it that too. Or you're drawing a false equivalency with the KKK or something.

I also feel that it's not particularly unethical to direct my judgment at a piece of clothing that is basically a well-known symbol of oppression, but which is still being largely ignored by some apologists.

So then write an informed critique or something resembling intelligent thought. "Potato sack costume" isn't an ethical judgment nor does it reflect well on you or your ideas. If you're actually not xenophobic and just have a problem with certain parts of people's cultures, then perhaps you should start acting like it, lest I get the wrong idea about your position. Because from where I'm standing that doesn't really look like a judgment at a symbol of oppression.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sorry I didn't read it particularly closely if you called it that too. Or you're drawing a false equivalency with the KKK or something.

So then write an informed critique or something resembling intelligent thought. "Potato sack costume" isn't an ethical judgment nor does it reflect well on you or your ideas. If you're actually not xenophobic and just have a problem with certain parts of people's cultures, then perhaps you should start acting like it, lest I get the wrong idea about your position. Because from where I'm standing that doesn't really look like a judgment at a symbol of oppression.

No one has trouble making fun of a pointed headed clown in a KKK costume, nor a jackbooted yoyo dressed like a Nazi, both classic symbols of hatred and brutal oppression. I don't see how we can see that kind of full body covering of women as anything but oppression because that's basically what it is, under the guise of religious fundamentalism. It represents male domination, fear of female freedom, control, power, jealousy, repression and a host of other things, at least to me. Makes as much sense to mock that as it would some KKK bozo in a white sheet and pointy hat.

 

[Mr. S]

The French government has published a very clear video of what's going to happen to wannabe terrorists...

Chaque fois, un message s'inscrit sur les images pour tenter de démonter les arguments fondamentalistes. «Ils te disent : sacrifie toi à nos côtés, tu défendras une juste cause» - «En réalité tu découvriras l'enfer sur terre et mourras seul loin de chez toi». «Ils te disent : viens fonder une famille avec un de nos héros» - «En réalité tu élèveras tes enfants dans la guerre et la terreur».

Translation: Every time there's a message written on the images to try and destroy the arguments of the jihadists. "They're telling you: sacrifice yourself next to us, you're defending a just cause." - "In reality you will discover hell on earth and die alone and far from your home.". "They tell you: come and start a family with one of our heroes." - "In reality you're going to raise your kids in war and terror.".

 

[KSaiyu]

Charlie Hebdo will be pleased to know they are the lucky recipients of the Islamic Human Rights Commission's international "Islamophobe of the year" award!

Massoud Shadjareh, who has been chair of the IHRC since 2011, says the award was not an endorsement of the attacks but was meant to be satirical.

“The overwhelming majority of people voted forCharlie Hebdo. I think in some ways it’s appropriate. The complaint that was made by Charlie Hebdo was that we Muslims do not have a sense of humour and we take things literally and we need to chill out and take what is thrown at us in good humour,” says Shadjareh.

http://www.newsweek.com/charlie-hebdo-given-islamophobia-award-muslim-group-312392

Think you need to work on your definition of "satire" guys.

Oh and I'm a little confused. Is the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act bad or the Police in the wrong for not stopping three girls to go to Syria?
Have to blame one or embrace the other people, can't have it both ways..

 

[Mr. S]

Charlie Hebdo will be pleased to know they are the lucky recipients of the Islamic Human Rights Commission's international "Islamophobe of the year" award!

They're <insert random culture>phobic. They make fun of everyone and everything. But yeah, I can see why such a group would give them an "award" - just like hardcore Christian groups protested against them.

 

[KSaiyu]

Hardcore Christian groups didn't go on a shooting rampage in their hq

 

[GBO Possum]

They're <insert random culture>phobic. They make fun of everyone and everything. But yeah, I can see why such a group would give them an "award" - just like hardcore Christian groups protested against them.

The very name "Islamic Human Rights Commission" brings an oxymoronic smile to my face! So I guess they do "make fun of everyone and everything".

 

[Carbonox]

The very name "Islamic Human Rights Commission" brings an oxymoronic smile to my face! So I guess they do "make fun of everyone and everything".

The only question is, what comes next? A WBC-led gay rights organization?

 

[Liquid]

Hardcore Christian groups didn't go on a shooting rampage in their hq

No, hardcore Christian groups just firebomb abortion clinics and kill British and/or Irish nationals instead. Much more placable.

 

[KSaiyu]

No, hardcore Christian groups just firebomb abortion clinics and kill British and/or Irish nationals instead. Much more placable.

Difference? Christian moderate "human rights" agencies (if such a thing exists) don't trivialize it

In essence it's like the adl holding a poll on anti semites and the victim of an extreme Zionist attack being the winners.

Please look up what the ihrc is - it even had endorsement from the Archbishop of Canterbury..

 

[Scaff]

It all rather reminds me of the 'person of the year' swards that Time have awarded over the years, which Hitler won once and Stalin won twice.

 

[KSaiyu]

Yeah maybe, if it was 1945 and Time spoke for the people of Germany.

 

[Scaff]

It was 1938 and Time did give it based upon the reunification of Germany, Austria and Sudentenland; in reality the invasion and annexation of the sovereign lands of two countries and the formation of German expansion policies that lead to WW2.

1945 is irrelevant as a comparison given that Hitler had taken enough land by force and been the architect of more than enough murders long before 1939 (the mass murders on the Night of Long Knives in 1934 being just one example).

Time magazine gave the man of the year award to someone who had annexed the lands of two countries, ordered the murders of hundreds of people and imprisoned without trial thousands of others.

Oh and you will note that I said it 'reminds me' of it, not that its a direct parallel.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It was 1938 and Time did give it based upon the reunification of Germany, Austria and Sudentenland; in reality the invasion and annexation of the sovereign lands of two countries and the formation of German expansion policies that lead to WW2.

It's worth mentioning that pre-WWII Germany was a good industrial customer of America too; despite the embargoes on certain purchases Germany still managed to stockpile technology and materials from across the water, not to mention the immense IBM mainframe that was used for (ahem) record-keeping.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It was 1938 and Time did give it based upon the reunification of Germany, Austria and Sudentenland; in reality the invasion and annexation of the sovereign lands of two countries and the formation of German expansion policies that lead to WW2.

1945 is irrelevant as a comparison given that Hitler had taken enough land by force and been the architect of more than enough murders long before 1939 (the mass murders on the Night of Long Knives in 1934 being just one example).

Time magazine gave the man of the year award to someone who had annexed the lands of two countries, ordered the murders of hundreds of people and imprisoned without trial thousands of others.

Oh and you will note that I said it 'reminds me' of it, not that its a direct parallel.

Isn't the selection of "person(man) of the year" based on how newsworthy someone is/was, rather than their character or humanity or lack thereof. Wasn't the Ayatollah and Khrushchev also chosen for that reason?

 

[KSaiyu]

Isn't the selection of "person(man) of the year" based on how newsworthy someone is/was, rather than their character or humanity or lack thereof. Wasn't the Ayatollah and Khrushchev also chosen for that reason?

"for better or for worse...has done the most to influence the events of the year"

Oh and you will note that I said it 'reminds me' of it, not that its a direct parallel.

Can't see the similarity really.

One is in spectacularly poor taste whereas the other is a comment on current affairs.

 

[Scaff]

Isn't the selection of "person(man) of the year" based on how newsworthy someone is/was, rather than their character or humanity or lack thereof. Wasn't the Ayatollah and Khrushchev also chosen for that reason?

It is indeed, however its very often not taken in that manner.

"for better or for worse...has done the most to influence the events of the year"


Can't see the similarity really.

One is in spectacularly poor taste whereas the other is a comment on current affairs.

The Time 'person of the year selection has been said to have been in poor taste and insensitive on a number of occasions, a point that Time themselves are quite open about (describing many selections as controversial).

Both will be seen by some as advocating the award recipient, by some as being critical of the award recipient, by some as controversial, by others as in poor taste, etc, etc. The intention of the person(s) writing a piece and how it is perceived do not often match and in that they remind me of each other.

Then again I didn't for a second expect you to see the similarity.

 

[Dotini]

It's worth mentioning that pre-WWII Germany was a good industrial customer of America too; despite the embargoes on certain purchases Germany still managed to stockpile technology and materials from across the water, not to mention the immense IBM mainframe that was used for (ahem) record-keeping.

Many Americans wanted no part in European wars. We had many German settlers. Some desired neutrality. Others apparently played both sides of the street. Prescott Bush, father of GHW Bush, is said to have sold munitions to both sides, and Henry Ford to have provided management services to Nazi Germany. Some Republicans, including the important senator Robert Taft, advocated non-interventionism, and are today celebrated as fathers of libertarian and paleo-conservative movements.

 

[Famine]

The Time 'person of the year selection has been said to have been in poor taste and insensitive on a number of occasions, a point that Time themselves are quite open about (describing many selections as controversial).

Apropos of that, I was once Time POTY.

 

[KSaiyu]

The Time 'person of the year selection has been said to have been in poor taste and insensitive on a number of occasions, a point that Time themselves are quite open about (describing many selections as controversial).

Both will be seen by some as advocating the award recipient, by some as being critical of the award recipient, by some as controversial, by others as in poor taste, etc, etc. The intention of the person(s) writing a piece and how it is perceived do not often match and in that they remind me of each other.

One is by a group determined to play the victim card for political gain (think ADL), the other is a internationally respected news magazine that attracts some of the best writers from around the world. They also speak for entirely different populations.

Then again I didn't for a second expect you to see the similarity.

Bigot and I've lost the power of impartiality..

 

[Scaff]

Apropos of that, I was once Time POTY.

As were we all

One is by a group determined to play the victim card for political gain (think ADL), the other is a internationally respected news magazine that attracts some of the best writers from around the world. They also speak for entirely different populations.

Still missing the point about it reminding me of it and it not be a direct parallel.

Bigot and I've lost the power of impartiality..

Given that I have never refereed to you as a bigot I'm at a loss as to understand why you have even mentioned this. The only logical conclusion would be that you wish to infer to others that I had done.

Please explain exactly why you have done this?

 

[Brett]

Apropos of that, I was once Time POTY.

You too?! I still need to get that accomplishment listed on my resume.

 

[KSaiyu]

Given that I have never refereed to you as a bigot I'm at a loss as to understand why you have even mentioned this. The only logical conclusion would be that you wish to infer to others that I had done.

Maybe inferred, with that "My posts having elements of bigotry" comment? That line wasn't directed to you specifically, more a reflection on the opinion of me by some in the forum (including someone who out and out called me a bigot).

 

[Scaff]

Maybe inferred, with that "My posts having elements of bigotry" comment? That line wasn't directed to you specifically, more a reflection on the opinion of me by some in the forum (including someone who out and out called me a bigot).

I'm going to make this very simple for you.

Do not ever quote mine my comments again or present them out of context.

What I said was:

The simple reason why your posts do come across as containing elements of bigotry is that you seem to tie everything back to race and religion, but even that you do selectively. It comes across as Islam is the problem and if anyone cites similar issues from other faiths or social groups they are dismissed as not being as bad.

I explained why you posts could be seen by others as containing elements of bigotry, quite is utterly different to how you have now twice presented this. You have not twice clearly inferred that I have referred to you and you comments as bigoted.

Now even having done it twice I could almost give it a pass had I not also said to you via PM:

I can certainly see how others see your posts as being bigoted, that's not to say you are bigoted, but I do feel that you project your local experiences onto a larger scale and that is both unrealistic and almost certain to be inaccurate.

Now with the quotes correctly in context its rather clear that I have never referred to either yourself of your comments as bigoted, rather I have explained how I believe others may have taken it to be that way.

Given that, the only logical conclusion I can come to is that you have chosen to deliberately miss-represent what I have said both in public thread and via PM. That is both an AUP violation and a very long way from the conduct that the site find acceptable from members.

I have asked another member of staff (@Famine ) to address any AUP violation as to remove any conflict of interest, however I would strongly recommend that you do not do this again if you wish to remain a member here.

 

[KSaiyu]

I guess.

 

[Scaff]

I guess.

You guess what?

 

[eran0004]

No one has trouble making fun of a pointed headed clown in a KKK costume, nor a jackbooted yoyo dressed like a Nazi, both classic symbols of hatred and brutal oppression. I don't see how we can see that kind of full body covering of women as anything but oppression because that's basically what it is, under the guise of religious fundamentalism. It represents male domination, fear of female freedom, control, power, jealousy, repression and a host of other things, at least to me. Makes as much sense to mock that as it would some KKK bozo in a white sheet and pointy hat.

It's a cultural piece of clothing, not a uniform (unlike the Hugo Boss designed Nazi uniforms or the KKK ritual costumes).

Sure, you can see it as a symbol of hatred and brutal oppression, just like I can see the flag of Canada as a symbol of hatred and brutal oppression. It doesn't however mean that it holds these values, and attacking cultural symbols certainly isn't a constructive way of conducting a dialogue.