[666maslo666]

I do agree that poverty is an important factor (not the only one tough).

But it is no excuse. There can be no excuse for religious extremism.

Yes! We should not be slandering Muslims who have been already slandered quite enough. We should be condemning those who by interpreting the Koran in the worst possible light are able to take advantage of their desperate countrymen to further their own power and have a good time hurting and intimidating others.

We should be slandering every muslim that has extremist tendencies, which as I said is around half of them. No matter what the reasons behind the extremism are. This is not a problem than will go away by pretending it does not exist or appeasement. Nor will it be solved by concentrating only on actual terrorists and ignoring the enablers. Terrorists are only the very tip of the iceberg, it is the mycelium that enables them to grow that needs to be addressed.

In fact, this is not a problem that can be solved at all. Such a clash of great but incompatible cultures needs only time (centuries maybe), and then hoping for the best. These attacks will go on, get used to it. In fact, I expect them to get even worse. Especially in countries with significant and growing muslim minorities.

What we can do is try to minimize the threat by containing the problem mostly in middle east and not exporting it all over the world. Rethinking our immigration policies. Also trying to stabilize the situation over there, not creating conflicts unless it is absolutely necessary. Rethinking our foreign policies. ISIS still needs to be destroyed though.

[Flipside]

The problem is thinking there is some kind of way of telling the difference between 'extremist' Muslims and those who are exercising Freedom of Speech, because it depends greatly on what the listener wants to hear.

For example, calling on Iraqi citizens to rise up and overthrow Saddam was a tactic that was actually used during the Iraq war, so if that is the case, is it not equally Free Speech to call on any other group to rise up and throw off any other leader?

I'm going to start using a new phrase, 'Decadence of Speech', where the concept of being able to speak your own mind has become so commonplace that those common boundaries of respect and good manners breaks down, in some ways it is the equal and opposite of Fundamentalism.

[The E]

We should be slandering every muslim that has extremist tendencies, which as I said is around half of them.

Yes, you said that. And you cited a study about muslims living in muslim states and muslim cultures. Not even all of the islamic countries, but a very strange subset of them, which doesn't even include Saudi-Arabia, Iran, or the various asian countries. By that metric, you could survey some of the US  bible belt (taking care to only interview those who self-identify as christian) and then proclaim all of the US to be fundamentalist christian; I hope you can see how idiotically flawed that argument is.

[666maslo666]

We should be slandering every muslim that has extremist tendencies, which as I said is around half of them.

Yes, you said that. And you cited a study about muslims living in muslim states and muslim cultures. Not even all of the islamic countries, but a very strange subset of them, which doesn't even include Saudi-Arabia, Iran, or the various asian countries. By that metric, you could survey some of the US  bible belt (taking care to only interview those who self-identify as christian) and then proclaim all of the US to be fundamentalist christian; I hope you can see how idiotically flawed that argument is.

Those countries are where the majority of muslims are so they are pretty representative of global islam. Just sum up their populations, it is a very big number. It does have an asian country, Indonesia. Half of Indonesians are extremists. Wasnt so long ago when they had a law on the books to stone adulterers. There is no reason to believe muslims in those majority muslim countries not included in the survey are much better. There is reason to believe that muslims living in the west are better, indeed there is a survey of british muslims where only less than third are extremists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion). Still, it is not going to move the global average much, and it is still too high a number. And this is not the only survey to show similar results, there are several more and nothing to the contrary.

Bible belt is not where majority of Christians live and come from. If it was, then yes such survey would be pretty representative. And I doubt you would get such numbers even in bible belt. Maybe in subsaharan Africa.

EDIT: added source for Kara

[karajorma]

indeed there is a survey of british muslims where only less than third are extremists.

That's bull****, and you're taking a week off too.

[zookeeper]

indeed there is a survey of british muslims where only less than third are extremists.

That's bull****, and you're taking a week off too.

Since that seems like a plausible enough result, I tried to find the survey he was likely referring to, which I believe is explained here. If acceptance of "killing in the name of religion (if that religion is under attack)" counts as extremism, then that's indeed a third (of students).

Vaguely similar'ish numbers cited in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Polls

[Luis Dias]

I have little time to dig in and perhaps get me banned as well (Kidding! I promise!), but I would hope that people could take a moment to reflect that criticizing ideas, whichever they are, are not tantamount to criticize peoples.

And that is which was under attack yesterday. And for that reason alone, we must, we must show the entire world that this strategy of silencing others through fear is absolutely counter-productive. I'm not even arguing that it is absolutely disgusting and immoral, because clearly these people are just waaaay out there in crazylalalaland to even acknowledge this, but if they see an end result wherein a hundred thousand cartoons are created and shared through the entire world because you went on and tried to silence one satirical newspaper through murder, then perhaps that can stop you on your tracks.

If people start criticizing the cartoons instead, just like they did with the danish cartoons, just like they did with Salman Rushdie, etc., etc., then our civilization has lost to the terrorists.

Yes, the cartoons were probably very offensive.

Yes, they must be absolutely free to draw and publish them.

Freedom to draw and publish them includes the freedom to do so without the fear of being massacred on the spot.

Freedom of Speech means NOTHING if you are only allowed to express things that do not offend anyone.

This is not only an islamist problem. Bill Donohue chimed in saying that the muslims were right to be angry, the problem were the cartoons. This attitude must stop. It must end here. We must defend our civilzation from the barbarians, wherever they are, whichever flag they carry, whatever ideology or religion they espouse. We must defend our civilization, its liberties, its dignity. It's our stand. It might be offensive, it might be despicable, it might be an "inhuman" lack of empathy, but it is OUR RIGHT to be blasphemous, and it is one of our most PRECIOUS right.

A right that half of the world doesn't have the privilege of having, a right that we should defend to the end. Lose it and you have lost the beachhead to the extremists, to the totalitarians, to those who want to define what we are or are not allowed to say, not on some private forum here and there, but EVERYWHERE.

And let's drop all the "racist" or "islamophobic" commentary. There are hundreds of millions of muslims right now watching this unfold and who are rooting for the winning of the freedom of speech, the two worst things that could happen would be for the terrorists to start winning this war on free speech or to instill hatred on our hearts against all of the muslims. Both will inevitably happen, but it's on everyone of us to fight this war on both those two fronts.

[Phantom Hoover]

indeed there is a survey of british muslims where only less than third are extremists.

That's bull****, and you're taking a week off too.

I don't think that was unreasonable enough for a summary ban when he did actually link to an article (from the Grauniad too, not some tabloid rag) backing up his statement. Sure, it's bull****, but that's the fault of "Stephen Bates and agencies" for misrepresenting the study.

[T-Man]

Since that seems like a plausible enough result, I tried to find the survey he was likely referring to, which I believe is explained here. If acceptance of "killing in the name of religion (if that religion is under attack)" counts as extremism, then that's indeed a third (of students).

Vaguely similar'ish numbers cited in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Polls

I've had to explore surveys and the conducting/presenting of them a lot (Psychology, Critical Media Studies, etc; don't mean that in a big-headed way just mean as in serious study of them) and trust me, surveys should never be trusted; give a thousand people the same statistics and they'll interpret them in a thousand different ways (check out any time a statistic is mentioned in political news and watch both sides use it; it's scary if morbidly interesting). We also need to consider why the survey was done; did they have an objective? Did anyone ask for the survey? Did they cherry-pick whom they asked? If it was online can we trust every click made? No doubt the survey has some information, but I'd vote pinch of salt (especially if it was just some British students, thought I read a 1000 at one point? I would argue that isn't really statistically relevant if we're thinking about global religious feeling).


It's a truly horrible situation and I do feel it right we not give in to people who would attack us like this, but I'd beg people not to let their anger turn them against other people just because they happen to be the same religion or race or the like (something I fear happens a lot nowadays); arguably to do so would truly make us no better than those we're fighting (if we were to hate a muslim for being muslim, how are we any different to an extremist hating us for not being?).

More importantly perhaps, doesn't almost all of these terrorist attacks we see nowadays breach the laws of Islam anyway? It saddens me that they seem to make so many people dislike Muslims when they happen and I hope it's just me being paranoid about it; it'd arguably be like hating all British because of the Cray Twins or all Americans because of Charles Manson.

[Bobboau]

We shouldn't be proud of them for saying it. Proud of ourselves for allowing them, but not proud of them.

I thought that's what I said.

[Luis Dias]

I find it stunning that at the very moment the subject becomes controversial, suddenly all social science tools become irrelevant and even untrustworthy, you should totally ignore what they are saying, don't even acknowledge there's a curtain, etc., etc.

The level of selective anti-social science in this thread is barking.

The poll in question is just not an outlier, and its results are not unclear, check them for yourself: http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/download_pdf-131206-Policy-Exchange-Poll-of-Muslims---Living-Apart-Together.pdf

If you are going to state that a belief that apostasy from islam should be penalized with death is not a "radical" belief, then I think we might have reached the reason why some of you will state this is all just "bull****", but then I am just amazed at what would drive you to consider "radical". Not even the Scientologists go that ****ing far.


Again, this is not an "anti-muslims" commentary. If anything, muslims are the ones suffering its own ideologies the most, but if people will just pretend that reality isn't what it is, and instead chooses to put fingers on their ears, start banning and smothering people's mouths because they are saying uncomfortable factual truths, you're not helping anyone. You're just pretending that a problem does not exist and hopefully it will all go away.

I'll give you this: I don't see any easy solution, and the worst part is that the only ones addressing this like a real problem and trying to come up with solutions come from the xenophobic right wing mindsets. It's no wonder that then these are the only parties rising in popularity in Europe, because they are the only ones actually acknowledging it and not calling people lunatics or bull****ters when they are just seeing reality with their lying eyes.

Both the center-left and the center-right must start acknowledging these problems and start to come up with reasonable, enlightened and empirically tested ideas that start to solve this problem. The alternative is not pretty.

[Bobboau]

you should put up a few more sources, especially when you say it is not an outlier. That's always a good idea, especially when bans are being handed out. Populus is a 11 year old marketing firm, do you have something from Pew? Gallup?

[karajorma]

If people start criticizing the cartoons instead, just like they did with the danish cartoons, just like they did with Salman Rushdie, etc., etc., then our civilization has lost to the terrorists.

Yes, the cartoons were probably very offensive.

Yes, they must be absolutely free to draw and publish them.

Freedom to draw and publish them includes the freedom to do so without the fear of being massacred on the spot.

Freedom of Speech means NOTHING if you are only allowed to express things that do not offend anyone.

I agree 100% with everything you've said there, but there is another side to that which people often ignore. Just because you have the right to publish those cartoons, doesn't mean it was a good idea to do so. Yes, we absolutely have the right to decide to hold "Call all Russians Bastards" Day if we so choose. Would it be a good idea? Would it help the international situation any?

This is the thing that so-called defenders of free speech never answer. What good did Draw Muhammed Day do? While I fully believe that you should have the right to draw him if you choose to do so, why is that a good idea? Cause to me it basically seems like an attempt to prove to yourself that you have free speech and damn the consequences.

I tend to feel that free speech also includes responsibilities. Yes you have the right to say whatever you want, but that should be mitigated by not using that freedom to go out of your way to be a dick.

We shouldn't be proud of them for saying it. Proud of ourselves for allowing them, but not proud of them.

I thought that's what I said.

But earlier in this thread you attempted to justify your own version of what they do. Like we should be proud of you for taking a stand on free speech.

By that logic we should be proud of Westbro Baptist too. After all, most people won't allow them to say what they want to say. 

[Luis Dias]

The problem is that, unlike whether saying X or Y or Z is a bad idea in the HLP forums is your business, it's not either mine or your business to tell anyone if making a cartoon about Mohammed is a good or a bad idea at all, and I find it even offensive that this kind of "punditry" is being done not only by anonymous posters in some forgotten forum, but on freaking Financial Times or any other major outlet that have no moral qualms to start their own victim blaming insinuations.

There might be a lot of good reasons to draw these cartoons, and I even think that these people who were murdered who have TOLD us that they were WILLING TO DIE for drawing these cartoons soon after there was a bomb situation, would wipe the floor with this position of yours. The freedom to ridicule the ridiculous is not just a freedom to be a jackass. It's not. It's absolutely not. It's the freedom to call a king naked, it's the freedom to poke ridiculousness into an impossibly authoritarian state of mind and of social interactions between many many muslims trapped in the most backward versions of the Sharia Law.

This is not just a liberty to be fun, or to "make jokes". It's one of our tools against tiranny. One of the most effectives even, given how it ires so many of these absolutist extremists. Hell, it was by ridicule that they eventually killed the KKK. IOW, you do not understand the importance of what is at stake here, and I beg for you to start thinking harder about it.

This because in a sense, the terrorists have won this chapter. Comics will think twice before making fun of islam in the medium and long run. It's inevitable, despite all the bravery of so many cartoonists yesterday and so on. And this will mean that the authocracy in so many muslim cultures won't have as many  necessary ideological medicines to get them to a point of stopping to take their Islam so ****ing seriously to the point of negating any cultural advancement regarding women's issues, homossexuality, freedom of religion, and so on and so forth!

you should put up a few more sources, especially when you say it is not an outlier. That's always a good idea, especially when bans are being handed out. Populus is a 11 year old marketing firm, do you have something from Pew? Gallup?

They are everywhere and google is your friend. For instance: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291

[karajorma]

You miss the point. I'm not even remotely blaming the victim. However by drawing Muhammed you help the extremists. How is that helping to bring down tyrants?

There are ways to ridicule the extremists without pushing the moderates towards them. Why not do that instead?


Let me give you a counter-analogy, would you support an ardent anti-rape feminist who suggested having a get passout drunk and go to a frat house party day as a method of fighting rape culture? Or would you say that while you fully believe that women should be able to get pass out drunk without fear of being raped, that it would be a really bad idea to tell people to do that.

[Luis Dias]

I don't miss the point, what simply happens is that you are just totally wrong. Here, listen to this conversation and particularly, listen to Nawaz, a well known former extremist and now anti-extremist: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1051109638239227&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=daily_politics&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Share the risk. Our freedoms cannot be dependent on ONE newspaper outlet. EVERYONE should step up. EVERYONE should draw Mohammed.

[Mr. Vega]

You miss the point. I'm not even remotely blaming the victim. However by drawing Muhammed you help the extremists. How is that helping to bring down tyrants?

There are ways to ridicule the extremists without pushing the moderates towards them. Why not do that instead?

Ok, wait. Are we really arguing about how it's our duty to tone down the religious mockery? What century is this? Are you going to tell me it's no longer ok to laugh at South Park's satirical episodes now?

No, what our duty is is to fight against Islamophobia and racism in the west (seriously, read that article. These are the people who control the eurozone right now). Muslim immigrants are not being alienated and marginalized because someone is drawing cartoons making fun of their beliefs.

[karajorma]

Ok, wait. Are we really arguing about how it's our duty to tone down the religious mockery? What century is this? Are you going to tell me it's no longer ok to laugh at South Park's satirical episodes now?

South Park take the piss out of everyone. So it's not like they are picking on one particular group. IF people started saying you should take the piss out of Jesus at the same time, I'd be more willing to listen to them.

No, what our duty is is to fight against Islamophobia and racism in the west (seriously, read that article. These are the people who control the eurozone right now). Muslim immigrants are not being alienated and marginalized because someone is drawing cartoons making fun of their beliefs.

The same polls Luis seems to be so fond of have only a very, very small percentage saying that Islamophobia is a big problem. I happen to disagree with them on that point cause I consider it to be quite a big problem but I tend to feel that the Draw Muhammed Day nonsense doesn't help matters at all because it helps the wankers doing it feel that they are in the right, that they have support from common people.

[Mr. Vega]

Ok, wait. Are we really arguing about how it's our duty to tone down the religious mockery? What century is this? Are you going to tell me it's no longer ok to laugh at South Park's satirical episodes now?

South Park take the piss out of everyone. So it's not like they are picking on one particular group. IF people started saying you should take the piss out of Jesus at the same time, I'd be more willing to listen to them.

Charlie Hebdo did skewer everyone.

[Luis Dias]

South Park take the piss out of everyone. So it's not like they are picking on one particular group. IF people started saying you should take the piss out of Jesus at the same time, I'd be more willing to listen to them.

The **** is that Karajorma. That's a strawman. A completely inane one. Hell, we all know that Charlie Hebdo mocked the entire religious scene so what the ****.

It wasn't drawing Jesus that got people shot to death Karajorma. The right to draw mockery of Christianity is not at stake here, Karajorma.

Come. ON.