Do you think violence is a justified response to offensive speech?

[mjames]

All things are sacred. The reason however, why media outlets used to dedicate their efforts to criticizing Islam instead of say my love for Chopin is because, unlike my musical viewpoints, Islam is a religion. All religions are ideologies, a collection of ideas, now whether or not they are inspired by men or deities isn't important; it is a fact that they are upheld by men and women all over the world. The multifaceted nature of  many religions, particularly the dominant ones, allows them to transgress into a number of fields including but not limited to politics, rituals, spirituality, and ethics. It's no mystery that political and ethical ideas can and do largely shape societies, so is it not common sense to assume religious ideologies can do the same? Of course it is, given the number of examples of religions greatly influencing a number of cultures and civilizations. In fact, it is only until recently Western culture has made an effort to separate religion and the state. So why do you and so many people profess that the supposed sacredness of religions should allow them to be exempt from criticism? Just what precedent are you trying to set by implying that certain ideologies, regardless of their apparent benevolence or malice, should unquestionably be exempt from 'harsh attacks from the West' because people hold them sacred? Some people hold dear to their neo-nazi beliefs, some people wholeheartedly believe that women and/or blacks should be treated like crap; no doubt these beliefs are 'sacred' to them. By that logic, you and the Pope should extend your sympathies to them - a la "don't be surprised when they attack you, I mean you were criticizing their 'sacred' neo-nazi beliefs!" The fact that no ideology should be exempt from criticism is an extension of freedom of expression, it is a defensive mechanism devised to shield us from totalitarianism. That includes Islam.

  Secondly, I would like to address the fundamental reason why Westerners, particularly Europeans are so concerned with wanting to critque/badmouth Islam. No it's not rooted in racism, bigotry, or xenophobia, it is an admittance of an obvious reality: muslims are now demographically significant in Europe. It is the admittance that Muslims, like any other native European citizen, now have the power to shape multiple political landscapes in several European countries. It is naive to assume religion plays a negligible role in the development of a person, and that is what many notable critics of Islam of European origin are focused on. The primary concerns of Charlie Hebdo or the Jyllands-Posten aren't foreign wars in the middle east, but the situations in their respective countries. As you should know, most of these terrorist attacks are carried out by European nationals. Critics aren't being xenophobic or bigoted, they're expressing valid concerns over Islam; an ideology. Muslims aren't being 'outed' or singled out, they are being treated like Europeans. Like Europe has done to Catholicism, Nazism, facism, witchcraft, racism, and many other political ideologies and commonly held beliefs, it is now doing the same to Islam. Criticism and scrutiny has been a staple of Western culture for centuries now. Unfortunately for Muslims, I don't think it's going to change anytime soon.

  So I'm passionately against the idiotic notion that "it's our fault" European nationals are not only angry, but acting out violently because a bunch of nerdy men won't stop insulting their religion by drawing a bunch of cartoons. European nationals acting out violently in the name of their religion isn't a fault on our part, in fact it only exposes the ideological flaw of being intolerant of dissenting viewpoints.

[georgey]

I’m not very familiar with this topic and I have given it only a little thought, so I can’t hope to contribute much to this conversation.  Here are my thoughts anyway.

A definition of “Mock”: tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner.  Does Charlie Hebdo mock others?  I will assume the answer is yes for now.  What is Charlie Hebdo hoping to accomplish by mocking?  Not sure.  If a person is truly tolerant of the thoughts of others, maybe he would not become upset at being mocked.  Maybe a tolerant person would at most respond to being mocked by mocking the mocker (i.e., mocking back).  Maybe Charlie Hebdo is testing the tolerance of others by mocking others.  Those that do not pass the test of tolerance are those that fight back with violence.  Okay, now Charlie Hebdo has identified who might be considered as intolerant (i.e. the ones that react to the mocking with violence).  Now what?  Do the intolerant suddenly say:  “My gosh, we must be intolerant.  Look at how we reacted with extreme violence to mere words.  We need to change ourselves.  Thank you for showing us our faults.”  No.  Instead there will likely be an escalation.  

My belief is: In order to change the views of others, you need to treat others with respect.

Edit:  Q: What about Hitler and WWII for example?  A: I believe this is an entirely different matter.  I will leave it at that.

Edit 2: Q: Do I think violence is a justified response to offensive speech? A: No

Edit 3: Q: Should individuals who commit acts of violence be held accountable in accordance with law? A: Yes – in case there is ANY doubt of my opinion on this

[mjames]

I’m not very familiar with this topic and I have given it only a little thought, so I can’t hope to contribute much to this conversation.  Here are my thoughts anyway.

A definition of “Mock”: tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner.  Does Charlie Hebdo mock others?  I will assume the answer is yes for now.  What is Charlie Hebdo hoping to accomplish by mocking?  Not sure.  If a person is truly tolerant of the thoughts of others, maybe he would not become upset at being mocked.  Maybe a tolerant person would at most respond to being mocked by mocking the mocker (i.e., mocking back).  Maybe Charlie Hebdo is testing the tolerance of others by mocking others.  Those that do not pass the test of tolerance are those that fight back with violence.  Okay, now Charlie Hebdo has identified who might be considered as intolerant (i.e. the ones that react to the mocking with violence).  Now what?  Do the intolerant suddenly say:  “My gosh, we must be intolerant.  Look at how we reacted with extreme violence to mere words.  We need to change ourselves.  Thank you for showing us our faults.”  No.  Instead there will likely be an escalation.  

My belief is: In order to change the views of others, you need to treat others with respect.

Edit:  Q: What about Hitler and WWII for example?  A: I believe this is an entirely different matter.  I will leave it at that.

Edit 2: Q: Do I think violence is a justified response to offensive speech? A: No

Edit 3: Q: Should individuals who commit acts of violence be held accountable in accordance with law? A: Yes – in case there is ANY doubt of my opinion on this

I actually didn't notice that you made a post, sorry about that. here's my answer:

Disabling or at least discouraging criticism allows abhorrent ideologies to fester and grow in the dark corners of society. The best way to disarm these tools of oppression is to publicly expose them and to break them down with reason and logic. The point is to foster debate, whether it causes exacerbation of violence or shift attitudes towards reformation, among both natives and nationals. That to me is why I think satire and social criticism is important; it improves the odds of self-reflection. In my opinion it is a far better alternative than pretending the problem doesn't exist at all.

[georgey]

I actually didn't notice that you made a post, sorry about that. here's my answer:

Disabling or at least discouraging criticism allows abhorrent ideologies to fester and grow in the dark corners of society. The best way to disarm these tools of oppression is to publicly expose them and to break them down with reason and logic. The point is to foster debate, whether it causes exacerbation of violence or shift attitudes towards reformation, among both natives and nationals. That to me is why I think satire and social criticism is important; it improves the odds of self-reflection. In my opinion it is a far better alternative than pretending the problem doesn't exist at all.

You can foster debate and criticize in a respectful way without insulting an entire religion.  You can publicly expose oppression without mocking the oppressors. You can foster debate in a way that decreases the odds of a violent reaction. When you anger someone to the point of extreme violence, do you think they are self-reflecting in a beneficial way afterwards?

I got my Medtner sonata #7 CD today!  From the mood of the sonata, I feel like I am listening to wind in the night lol.  Edit:  Thank you for suggesting this!  

[chomaninoff1]

I think violence is NEVER an appropriate reaction to offensive language. Some people are just assholes and will always say mean things. This does not give you to right to attack them, though.

Violence is uncivilized and shows that a person is ruled by emotions and not logic.

Of course if someone is attacking you, then you have the right to defend yourself, but if everyone lashed out when someone said something they deem to be offensive, we would have a lot of broken and bruised people in this world.

Also, some people are very sensitive and get offended easily. Who determines what is offensive?

Rach_forever: I don't understand why you would attack someone for being called black? There is nothing wrong with being black.

[georgey]

I don't care about 9/11, so I have no emotional attachments to it. My viewpoints are solely dependent on evidence and nothing else. If you can provide me evidence to support your claims then I'll be inclined to change my viewpoints, until then I will continue to dismiss your claims.

mjames, this was perfect.  I know it didn't get you very far, but it was a nice try.  Sorry I missed this.

[lostinidlewonder]

Quote from: lostinidlewonder on May 30, 2016, 01:29:01 PM
If you think the false flags are conspiracy theory then you are just being willingly ignorant.

Quote from: mjames on May 30, 2016, 01:34:42 PM
I don't care about 9/11, so I have no emotional attachments to it. My viewpoints are solely dependent on evidence and nothing else. If you can provide me evidence to support your claims then I'll be inclined to change my viewpoints, until then I will continue to dismiss your claims.

How was his post perfect? It totally talked past false flag activities and randomly talked about 911. False flags are a real thing, its the mindless who believe its not or just those who don't care.

[mjames]

Wrong. I'm completely aware that 'false flag' operations have been carried out by numerous countries in the past. The difference is that the mere suggestion of possibility does not constitute as evidence. Like I said before, "maybe", "what ifs" and so on are just empty conjectures until you decide to actually substantiate them with evidence. It is not and it is far from being equivalent to claiming that false operations aren't thing at all or that Western countries are incapable of committing such acts. Don't conflate the two ideas.

   Secondly, I don't understand why you're still here. Why are you so fervently focused on defending a proposition you don't care enough to substantiate? Seems counter-intuitive to me, but oh well, we all have our own quirks.

[lostinidlewonder]

Wrong. I'm completely aware that 'false flag' operations have been carried out by numerous countries in the past. The difference is that the mere suggestion of possibility does not constitute as evidence. .....

If you are fully aware of false flags you never said it before only now. lol quick google search did you?

So you fully believe the 911 commission report then, that is more amusing than believe the reality that it is a false flag. You are pretending to be clever by saying SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE, but you are asking on a piano forum, stop being silly.

Secondly, I don't understand why you're still here. Why are you so fervently focused on defending a proposition you don't care enough to substantiate? Seems counter-intuitive to me, but oh well, we all have our own quirks.

Im not defending anything, i am free to post whatever I like, get over it.

[mjames]

So you fully believe the 911 commission report then, that is more amusing than believe the reality that it is a false flag. You are pretending to be clever by saying SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE, but you are asking on a piano forum, stop being silly.

That is literally not what I said at all. Do what you like, words are obviously wasted on you.

[lostinidlewonder]

If you don't believe the false flag 911 reasoning then you believe the official commission report, if you don't believe the official report then you are merely a fence sitter with no opinion, in that case you can't ask for evidence because by your nature you really don't care or do not have the ability to weigh it.

Stop asking for evidence and look at it yourself. Trying to disprove someone by crying they are not laying out all the evidence and spoon feeding you with it is being idiotic. Go to a forum where this is a main issue and many experts talk about it.

[timothy42b]

Go to a forum where this is a main issue and many experts wacko conspiracy freaks talk about it.

Fixed that for you.

[lostinidlewonder]

Fixed that for you.

you mean fixed it for yourself.

[timothy42b]

you mean fixed it for yourself.

No.  I'm an engineer who's done renovation projects on large office buildings.  What these so-called experts allege is simply impossible. 

[lostinidlewonder]

What do you mean no? You edited my quote to suit yourself.

[timothy42b]

What do you mean no? You edited my quote to suit yourself.

<snort>  I edited your post out of an altruistic and compassionate desire to save you embarrassment. 

However I did derive some satisfaction from that noble act, so in that limited sense you are correct; I did suit myself. 

[lostinidlewonder]

<snort>  I edited your post out of an altruistic and compassionate desire to save you embarrassment.  

Ahh but you might not realize I'm rather self confident and never have seeked approval of others. You will find experts arguing both sides of the story too and also you will find slightly more than half the world don't believe the 911 commission report which ignores so many issues and lies about many others, so that's good evidence that I have no fear of being embarrassed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

However I did derive some satisfaction from that noble act, so in that limited sense you are correct; I did suit myself.  

Noble act lol, a little too presumptuous.

[pianoplayjl]