I believe that they are definitely representative, as I've been following similar polls for more than a decade, and many other countries also tell a similar story. Even polls from certain western countries show that a not small percentage of immigrants are radical extremists.
It still appears to be a minority though, which presents a problem because a minority out of 1.6 billion is still a lot. It could be that 20% (320m people) have more extreme views and 80% (1.28b people) don't. How can you effectively separate one from the other? When a more extreme minority like that is more than the population of the US, it's a very difficult problem to deal with because the other 1.28b don't deserve to be treated the same way.
I have also seen that Bill Maher vs Ben Afleck clip, and Ben Afleck is clearly out of his league and comes off as quite ignorant and unaware of basic facts.
Polls aren't quite factual and Affleck's viewpoint is perfectly valid but his politically correct stance is affecting how he's dealing with the information. It's not an issue that can be left alone to sort itself out.
They targeted the Jewish community, I read there was a Jewish event this week but any timing could just be coincidence. The gunmen most recently took hostages in a Jewish Kosher supermarket and 4 hostages were killed - 30 Jewish people fortunately managed to hide in a cold storage locker. The total killed so far including 3 gunmen is 20 people. One of the gunmen's girlfriend is on the run and armed so it may not be done yet. There have been a few incidents in France recently:
Some reports are linking the increased violence to the Israeli (Jewish) - Palestinian (Muslim) conflict but other reports are pointing to the history of what happened with Algerian Muslims:
If they start targeting the way they did here, that can cause a lot of damage. Just 3 people or so taking over supermarkets with dozens of victims at a time.
So when you see one of these terrorists beheading an innocent civilian, the first thing that comes to your mind is they need to be educated? The first thing that comes to my mind if find them and destroy them.
Or in the case of our esteemed governments in the West, do business with them and sell them weapons.
As for finding them and destroying them, the USA, the most militarised nation on earth seems to have been hell-bent in that mission since at least 2003 and that hasn't worked very well so far ... Are you proposing nuclear weapons?
Whether this world was created or evolved, there is still only one law: Survival of the fittest.
Organized religions were established as a result of this singular law. Us against them.
In time of plenty it is much easier to convince oneself that peace prevails, but the planet is just three missed meals away form total anarchy.
The islamist extremist are striking the west because the west has plenty and they do not. They become disillusioned that they are fighting for their religion when in fact they are fighting for survival.
Glad to see you are breathing!
I disagree with your viewpoint, however. Perhaps we can get this thread to 1,000 posts.
Or in the case of our esteemed governments in the West, do business with them and sell them weapons.
As for finding them and destroying them, the USA, the most militarised nation on earth seems to have been hell-bent in that mission since at least 2003 and that hasn't worked very well so far ... Are you proposing nuclear weapons?
We are giving weapons to the wrong people. What hasn't worked? Last I checked, there hasn't been a serious terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11. The U.S. can't just sit back and do nothing. We have to remain on the offensive. Nuclear weapons definitely would get the job done quicker in Middle Eastern countries. Having said that, I wouldn't support the use of nuclear weapons unless there was a significant state sponsored terrorist attack in the U.S.
I meant to say that you don’t see any so-called “moderate” Muslim leaders or individuals denouncing these actions (or those of the caliphate in the Middle East, etc.) because to do so would be to go against the Quran, as the Quran says to explicitly do the things the “extremists” are doing.
There are three roughly defined behaviors acceptable to Islam depending on the conditions in which Muslims find themselves, all of which are shown in the Quran and all of which are adhered to by whatever “kind” of Muslim you’ll see in the west or elsewhere.
Ok. Your post was, indeed, saying what I thought it was. Good thing I stayed away from responding before.
I don't know the Quran anywhere near well enough, but I doubt very much that what you're suggesting is remotely the case.
Yes, I believe that nut jobs across the globe are not getting support from at least 50% of those in their selected nation, religion, "race" or whatever other classification they or you wish to impose.
Do you think that over 50% of the group(s) you associate with would agree with the nutty things about genocide you desire?
Actually yes, a lot more free thinking people, as evident here, are starting to believe that islam is bent on destruction of the very civil liberties that grant them the permission to exist. Not sure if the muslim factions killing each other is genocide, but if they all want to become martyrs, I don't really care. Yes I'm an Infidel.
It seems that for American people (and therefore, Apple) the smallest piece of breast, or a single slang word is more offensive than violence to death, torture, racists declarations including propagation and incitement to racial hatred (which, in Europe, following the fifty million deaths of WW2, are generally forbidden by law).
That's the way it is, and the policy of US companies (not just Apple, but also Facebook, Google, etc ...) is to censor or to tag this "offensive" material with this ridiculous "explicit" comment (against which Frank Zappa strongly objected all his life, in the name of freedom of speech, without too much success). (see PMRC hearing )
Although the question was never raised, because Charlie Hebdo has always been distributed under paper form, it is pretty obvious Apple would never have allowed it to be distributed under electronic form on its platform, as an "offensive" material, which, (although I am an Apple huge fan), I would have considered as a regrettable censorship attitude.
?One thing is for sure, I can tell you that the Charlie Hebdo people assassinated were not propagating these racist ideas (although some people, who now claim to support them, have raised in the past such accusation against them).
And, to conclude, in spite of the reservations expressed above, I am happy with Apple attitude in this circumstance.
If you REALLY want to understand, WHY these things happen, check the book "36 Strategems" before commenting on any "terrorist acitivity". Nothing is as it seems.
One more thing.. Generally those who do know, do not comment on websites because it is mostly useless. But since i love Apple communtiy, i wanted to share some real knowledge with you guys.
If you REALLY want to understand, WHY these things happen, check the book "36 Strategems" before commenting on any "terrorist acitivity".
Nothing is as it seems.
One more thing..
Generally those who do know, do not comment on websites because it is mostly useless. But since i love Apple communtiy, i wanted to share some real knowledge with you guys.
... and I'd like to share some real knowledge with you.
You don't have to have the same point of view to support the cause. The main point is that killing someone in response is not acceptable. Kind of like saying I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it.
Apple wouldn't publish the cartoons themselves just as they wouldn't publish pornography but they would defend the rights of others to fair judgement over the content, which would never result in the loss of life.
We shouldn't be under any illusion that there is a global consensus on what qualifies as material suitable for publication. Is it suitable for a photographer to display pictures of nude children playing/urinating, something you'd see on a beach? Is it suitable to publish war memoranda, swastikas, images of torture? Should sports teams, streets, songwriters, poets continue to use names or words that cause offence to certain groups? Is it ok for sexually explicit Asian anime cartoons to depict younger characters?
'Je suis charlie' doesn't say that what they published was suitable material for mainstream publication, it just says nobody deserves to die for doing that. People who support this cause wouldn't necessarily think that about all material. Anything involving children, there would be calls from people for the death penalty:
Comment at the bottom: "hang them very slowly. Of course the death penalty will never be brought back because the bleeding hearts will never allow it to happen."
Of course there's often a difference between what people write online and how they'd deal with issues in person but the same process that makes someone kill over religious imagery causes people to feel incensed over other forms of media. We spend a lifetime developing positive or negative responses to things. There was a case of someone using twitter to attack the McCann family - the family whose child went missing after they left them at home while they went out:
[VIDEO]
This ended badly because that person who thought she had the freedom to say what she wanted was pushed into the spotlight by the media suggesting police were investigating her and she took her own life in a hotel room. There was another incident with a lorry crash that happened in the UK:
"Ross Loraine wrote: “So a bin lorry has crashed into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it’s ever picked up in one day that.”
The 19-year-old deleted his Twitter account minutes after posting his comment amid outrage from hundreds of social media users.
When the post went viral as other users made an effort to name and shame Loraine, of Sunderland, he gave himself up to police. He was arrested on suspicion of making a malicious communication and was bailed pending further inquiries."
If that comment had been said months or years later or not in reference to a particular event, it would have passed by unnoticed.
There was an article recently about how people are using encrypted web connections to maintain anonymity and freedom of speech but are using it to continue abuse hidden from the web that most people access (aka the clearnet):
"In the United States, pornography is considered a form of personal expression governed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is obscene, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California."
Who determines what is and isn't obscene? The UK just passed a law banning the production of pornography containing previously ok material:
In Eastern countries, their laws have been written to cover a completely different society. People in these countries have been using the same encrypted services described above to bypass censorship laws because they disagree with the law.
The ideal scenario for radical Muslims would be to become a majority population in Western countries and vote to implement Sharia Law. How could Western democracy undo that except the same way they did in Egypt, which was militarily overthrowing the oppressive government. Is it still a democracy if you use military force to overthrow a majority vote in a democratic election that was in favor of oppression?
People are clearly afraid of this kind of scenario taking place:
I think this is why some people hold onto religions because they are seen as unchanging in the face of ever-changing human laws and handed down by an unquestionable authority without realising that they are just really old and restrictive laws written by people like them and the only unquestionable authority is granted to them by the people who believe them.
Eventually we have to all come to the conclusion that we are the masters of our own domain and the rules we implement are by majority. The strength in Islam and Christianity has nothing to do with the minority of people who handed down the texts, it's in the huge numbers of people willing to believe what they say. A magician's magic is only magic to an audience willing to suspend their disbelief. Passive religions speak out against Islam but they're only processing a different text in exactly the same way they are and it's that process that's corrupt.
Other religions may not frequently harm people by murder any more but there are other ways to cause harm. You can deny contraception because it violates your belief system and promote the rise of AIDs and unwanted pregnancy, which in turn causes great harm. Christians condemn Islamic murder but in the same breath would happily say that those people will burn for all eternity in a fiery hell.
It's understandable why people are moderate towards religion because having an unquestionable and highly moral authority (even fictional) does result in good works that otherwise would be difficult to obtain. However, the thought process by which this is reached is far too dangerous. It relies on people denying rational thought. Social progress and peaceful existence can only come about through rational thought because as living organisms we change over time. Change requires dealing with scenarios that are new. Worryingly, the numbers of people who hold to any religion total in a majority of the world:
Almost 6/7 billion. Most of whom get taught to find partners in their own faith, taught that anyone questioning their faith should be seen as an enemy, that it's important to raise their children with the same values.
But if people are taught that there is no unquestionable moral authority then some people will not acknowledge any human authority. Anders Breivik did this when he refused to acknowledge the authority of the court trying him for the murder of 77 people and severe injuries to others in Norway:
He was religiously motivated as a Christian protesting against the rise of Islam.
Control comes about through an authority existing and the people being controlled respecting it. People who follow religion are (without knowing it) respecting the authority of human beings who lived and wrote laws millennia ago. People who follow modern law are respecting the authority of more recent human beings who wrote them. Modern laws are far easier to invalidate because of the abundance of information about why the laws came about and the profiles of the people motivated to write them. This doesn't exist for ancient laws and so people respect them more but people need to understand that it's exactly the same setup and when people scrutinize modern law when it's in conflict of ancient or religious law, they are free to do the same in reverse.
Freedom of speech isn't meant to give people the right to offend others (meaning that offensive material is promoted) in the same way the right to own a weapon doesn't grant the right to commit violence. The goal is always peace. They give you a right to choose how to express yourself and to question everything and your choice will have reasonable consequences. To some Islamists, the consequences dealt out in the Hebdo case were reasonable to them. To people supporting 'Je suis charlie', they were wholly unreasonable consequences, even if they don't promote the same material. As hard as it is to do, reasonable people even in circumstances like this have to continue to lead by example and not retaliate with unreasonable consequences.
You don't have to have the same point of view to support the cause. The main point is that killing someone in response is not acceptable. Kind of like saying I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it.
Apple wouldn't publish the cartoons themselves just as they wouldn't publish pornography but they would defend the rights of others to fair judgement over the content, which would never result in the loss of life.
We shouldn't be under any illusion that there is a global consensus on what qualifies as material suitable for publication. Is it suitable for a photographer to display pictures of nude children playing/urinating, something you'd see on a beach? Is it suitable to publish war memoranda, swastikas, images of torture? Should sports teams, streets, songwriters, poets continue to use names or words that cause offence to certain groups? Is it ok for sexually explicit Asian anime cartoons to depict younger characters?
'Je suis charlie' doesn't say that what they published was suitable material for mainstream publication, it just says nobody deserves to die for doing that. People who support this cause wouldn't necessarily think that about all material. Anything involving children, there would be calls from people for the death penalty:
Comment at the bottom: "hang them very slowly. Of course the death penalty will never be brought back because the bleeding hearts will never allow it to happen."
Of course there's often a difference between what people write online and how they'd deal with issues in person but the same process that makes someone kill over religious imagery causes people to feel incensed over other forms of media. We spend a lifetime developing positive or negative responses to things. There was a case of someone using twitter to attack the McCann family - the family whose child went missing after they left them at home while they went out:
[VIDEO]
This ended badly because that person who thought she had the freedom to say what she wanted was pushed into the spotlight by the media suggesting police were investigating her and she took her own life in a hotel room. There was another incident with a lorry crash that happened in the UK:
"Ross Loraine wrote: “So a bin lorry has crashed into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it’s ever picked up in one day that.”
The 19-year-old deleted his Twitter account minutes after posting his comment amid outrage from hundreds of social media users.
When the post went viral as other users made an effort to name and shame Loraine, of Sunderland, he gave himself up to police. He was arrested on suspicion of making a malicious communication and was bailed pending further inquiries."
If that comment had been said months or years later or not in reference to a particular event, it would have passed by unnoticed.
There was an article recently about how people are using encrypted web connections to maintain anonymity and freedom of speech but are using it to continue abuse hidden from the web that most people access (aka the clearnet):
"In the United States, pornography is considered a form of personal expression governed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is obscene, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California."
Who determines what is and isn't obscene? The UK just passed a law banning the production of pornography containing previously ok material:
In Eastern countries, their laws have been written to cover a completely different society. People in these countries have been using the same encrypted services described above to bypass censorship laws because they disagree with the law.
The ideal scenario for radical Muslims would be to become a majority population in Western countries and vote to implement Sharia Law. How could Western democracy undo that except the same way they did in Egypt, which was militarily overthrowing the oppressive government. Is it still a democracy if you use military force to overthrow a majority vote in a democratic election that was in favor of oppression?
People are clearly afraid of this kind of scenario taking place:
I think this is why some people hold onto religions because they are seen as unchanging in the face of ever-changing human laws and handed down by an unquestionable authority without realising that they are just really old and restrictive laws written by people like them and the only unquestionable authority is granted to them by the people who believe them.
Eventually we have to all come to the conclusion that we are the masters of our own domain and the rules we implement are by majority. The strength in Islam and Christianity has nothing to do with the minority of people who handed down the texts, it's in the huge numbers of people willing to believe what they say. A magician's magic is only magic to an audience willing to suspend their disbelief. Passive religions speak out against Islam but they're only processing a different text in exactly the same way they are and it's that process that's corrupt.
Other religions may not frequently harm people by murder any more but there are other ways to cause harm. You can deny contraception because it violates your belief system and promote the rise of AIDs and unwanted pregnancy, which in turn causes great harm. Christians condemn Islamic murder but in the same breath would happily say that those people will burn for all eternity in a fiery hell.
It's understandable why people are moderate towards religion because having an unquestionable and highly moral authority (even fictional) does result in good works that otherwise would be difficult to obtain. However, the thought process by which this is reached is far too dangerous. It relies on people denying rational thought. Social progress and peaceful existence can only come about through rational thought because as living organisms we change over time. Change requires dealing with scenarios that are new. Worryingly, the numbers of people who hold to any religion total in a majority of the world:
Almost 6/7 billion. Most of whom get taught to find partners in their own faith, taught that anyone questioning their faith should be seen as an enemy, that it's important to raise their children with the same values.
But if people are taught that there is no unquestionable moral authority then some people will not acknowledge any human authority. Anders Breivik did this when he refused to acknowledge the authority of the court trying him for the murder of 77 people and severe injuries to others in Norway:
He was religiously motivated as a Christian protesting against the rise of Islam.
Control comes about through an authority existing and the people being controlled respecting it. People who follow religion are (without knowing it) respecting the authority of human beings who lived and wrote laws millennia ago. People who follow modern law are respecting the authority of more recent human beings who wrote them. Modern laws are far easier to invalidate because of the abundance of information about why the laws came about and the profiles of the people motivated to write them. This doesn't exist for ancient laws and so people respect them more but people need to understand that it's exactly the same setup and when people scrutinize modern law when it's in conflict of ancient or religious law, they are free to do the same in reverse.
Freedom of speech isn't meant to give people the right to offend others (meaning that offensive material is promoted) in the same way the right to own a weapon doesn't grant the right to commit violence. The goal is always peace. They give you a right to choose how to express yourself and to question everything and your choice will have reasonable consequences. To some Islamists, the consequences dealt out in the Hebdo case were reasonable to them. To people supporting 'Je suis charlie', they were wholly unreasonable consequences, even if they don't promote the same material. As hard as it is to do, reasonable people even in circumstances like this have to continue to lead by example and not retaliate with unreasonable consequences.
You've got a hangup over religion being all about authority and control. That might be the case with some religions, but not Christianity, which is the only one true religion. Indeed, the central tenet of Christianity is based on conceding control where appropriate: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
"Freedom of speech isn't meant to give people the right to offend others .... <>"
?This is, as Zappa would say, the "crux of the biscuit" : by your definition, you have freedom of speech, but you cannot exercise it.
The notion of "offense" is very vague. Charlie Hebdo was criticized for offending muslims, but they were equally offensive towards Christians and Jews. From self limitations to self limitations of your freedom, you end up with no freedom at all, and give up to your own values : this is submission .
(Note incidentally that "islam" means "submission" )
If people feel offended, in a democratic society, that have the right to raise the case to courts (according, as you pointed out, to local and ever changing legislations). Jews , Christians and muslims tried this again Charlie Hebdo (they mostly lost the cases).
As long as the local legislation is met, there is no place for a notion like "blasphemy" (and furthermore, a death penalty attached to it ...) in a democratic society.
"Charb" (one of the assassinated Charlie Hebdo guys) knew he was under mortal threat, but declared "I prefer die standing up rather than live lying down".
"Freedom of speech isn't meant to give people the right to offend others .... <>"
?This is, as Zappa would say, the "crux of the biscuit" : by your definition, you have freedom of speech, but you cannot exercise it.
The notion of "<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">offense" is very vague. Charlie Hebdo was criticized for offending muslims, but they </span>
were<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> equally offensive towards Christians and Jews. From self limitations to self limitations of your freedom, </span>
you<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> end up with no </span>
freedom<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> at all, and give up to your own values : this is submission .</span>
<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">(Note incidentally that "islam" means "submission" )</span>
<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">If people feel offended, in a </span>
democratic<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> society, </span>
that<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> have the right to raise the case to courts (according, as you pointed out, to </span>
local<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> and ever </span>
changing<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> legislations). Jews , Christians and </span>
muslims<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> tried this </span>
again<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> Charlie Hebdo (they mostly lost the cases).</span>
As long as the local legislation is met, there is no place for a notion like "blasphemy" (and furthermore, a death penalty attached to it ...) in a democratic <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">society.</span>
<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">"Charb" (one of the </span>
assassinated<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> Charlie Hebdo guys) knew he was under mortal threat, but declared "I </span>
prefer<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> die </span>
standing<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> up rather than live lying down".</span>
Comments
It still appears to be a minority though, which presents a problem because a minority out of 1.6 billion is still a lot. It could be that 20% (320m people) have more extreme views and 80% (1.28b people) don't. How can you effectively separate one from the other? When a more extreme minority like that is more than the population of the US, it's a very difficult problem to deal with because the other 1.28b don't deserve to be treated the same way.
Polls aren't quite factual and Affleck's viewpoint is perfectly valid but his politically correct stance is affecting how he's dealing with the information. It's not an issue that can be left alone to sort itself out.
They targeted the Jewish community, I read there was a Jewish event this week but any timing could just be coincidence. The gunmen most recently took hostages in a Jewish Kosher supermarket and 4 hostages were killed - 30 Jewish people fortunately managed to hide in a cold storage locker. The total killed so far including 3 gunmen is 20 people. One of the gunmen's girlfriend is on the run and armed so it may not be done yet. There have been a few incidents in France recently:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/world/europe/french-authorities-appeal-for-calm-after-string-of-attacks.html?_r=0
Jewish people have been moving out of Paris and France:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2703594/Hatred-driving-new-exodus-Synagogues-attacked-Shops-flames-And-terrified-Jewish-families-fleeing-Britain-As-Israeli-envoy-says-like-dark-days-1938-chilling-dispatch-Paris.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903600/Every-single-French-Jew-know-left-Paris-Editor-Britain-s-Jewish-Chronicle-claims-people-fleeing-terror-hit-French-capital.html
http://www.france24.com/en/20141205-france-anti-semitic-attack-paris-suburb-creteil-shock-rape-robbery-jewish-community/
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.636273
Muslims outnumber Jews in France by about 10:1.
Some reports are linking the increased violence to the Israeli (Jewish) - Palestinian (Muslim) conflict but other reports are pointing to the history of what happened with Algerian Muslims:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/08/france-bloody-intolerant-history-bloodshed-muslims
One of the gunmen told reporters they represented and were funded by Al-Qaeda:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/paris-killer-cherif-kouachi-gave-interview-tv-channel-he-died-n283206
There's a warning about mass attacks being planned - it's a shame we don't know when to take the intelligence community seriously any more:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mi5-head-warns-alqaeda-is-planning-mass-casualty-attacks-against-the-west-9967239.html
If they start targeting the way they did here, that can cause a lot of damage. Just 3 people or so taking over supermarkets with dozens of victims at a time.
Or in the case of our esteemed governments in the West, do business with them and sell them weapons.
As for finding them and destroying them, the USA, the most militarised nation on earth seems to have been hell-bent in that mission since at least 2003 and that hasn't worked very well so far ... Are you proposing nuclear weapons?
Glad to see you are breathing!
I disagree with your viewpoint, however. Perhaps we can get this thread to 1,000 posts.
Or in the case of our esteemed governments in the West, do business with them and sell them weapons.
As for finding them and destroying them, the USA, the most militarised nation on earth seems to have been hell-bent in that mission since at least 2003 and that hasn't worked very well so far ... Are you proposing nuclear weapons?
We are giving weapons to the wrong people. What hasn't worked? Last I checked, there hasn't been a serious terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11. The U.S. can't just sit back and do nothing. We have to remain on the offensive. Nuclear weapons definitely would get the job done quicker in Middle Eastern countries. Having said that, I wouldn't support the use of nuclear weapons unless there was a significant state sponsored terrorist attack in the U.S.
Ok. Your post was, indeed, saying what I thought it was. Good thing I stayed away from responding before.
I don't know the Quran anywhere near well enough, but I doubt very much that what you're suggesting is remotely the case.
Yes, I believe that nut jobs across the globe are not getting support from at least 50% of those in their selected nation, religion, "race" or whatever other classification they or you wish to impose.
Do you think that over 50% of the group(s) you associate with would agree with the nutty things about genocide you desire?
Actually yes, a lot more free thinking people, as evident here, are starting to believe that islam is bent on destruction of the very civil liberties that grant them the permission to exist. Not sure if the muslim factions killing each other is genocide, but if they all want to become martyrs, I don't really care. Yes I'm an Infidel.
Do you live in a fascist country?
I do not live on an Island.
I do not live on an Island.
Hahahahahahaahaha...
(... but you sound like you live in a fascist country)
Apple #JeSuisCharlie?
Charlie Hebdo stood for free speech, whilst Apple censors content on the App stores, or on iTunes at their own discretion.
Apple should rather show #JeNeSuisPasCharlie!
It seems that for American people (and therefore, Apple) the smallest piece of breast, or a single slang word is more offensive than violence to death, torture, racists declarations including propagation and incitement to racial hatred (which, in Europe, following the fifty million deaths of WW2, are generally forbidden by law).
That's the way it is, and the policy of US companies (not just Apple, but also Facebook, Google, etc ...) is to censor or to tag this "offensive" material with this ridiculous "explicit" comment (against which Frank Zappa strongly objected all his life, in the name of freedom of speech, without too much success). (see PMRC hearing
)
Although the question was never raised, because Charlie Hebdo has always been distributed under paper form, it is pretty obvious Apple would never have allowed it to be distributed under electronic form on its platform, as an "offensive" material, which, (although I am an Apple huge fan), I would have considered as a regrettable censorship attitude.
?One thing is for sure, I can tell you that the Charlie Hebdo people assassinated were not propagating these racist ideas (although some people, who now claim to support them, have raised in the past such accusation against them).
And, to conclude, in spite of the reservations expressed above, I am happy with Apple attitude in this circumstance.
Nothing is as it seems.
One more thing..
Generally those who do know, do not comment on websites because it is mostly useless. But since i love Apple communtiy, i wanted to share some real knowledge with you guys.
If you REALLY want to understand, WHY these things happen, check the book "36 Strategems" before commenting on any "terrorist acitivity".
Nothing is as it seems.
One more thing..
Generally those who do know, do not comment on websites because it is mostly useless. But since i love Apple communtiy, i wanted to share some real knowledge with you guys.
... and I'd like to share some real knowledge with you.
Nothing is as it seems.
You don't have to have the same point of view to support the cause. The main point is that killing someone in response is not acceptable. Kind of like saying I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it.
Apple wouldn't publish the cartoons themselves just as they wouldn't publish pornography but they would defend the rights of others to fair judgement over the content, which would never result in the loss of life.
We shouldn't be under any illusion that there is a global consensus on what qualifies as material suitable for publication. Is it suitable for a photographer to display pictures of nude children playing/urinating, something you'd see on a beach? Is it suitable to publish war memoranda, swastikas, images of torture? Should sports teams, streets, songwriters, poets continue to use names or words that cause offence to certain groups? Is it ok for sexually explicit Asian anime cartoons to depict younger characters?
'Je suis charlie' doesn't say that what they published was suitable material for mainstream publication, it just says nobody deserves to die for doing that. People who support this cause wouldn't necessarily think that about all material. Anything involving children, there would be calls from people for the death penalty:
http://news.sky.com/story/1389725/sexual-messages-to-children-to-be-made-illegal
Comment at the bottom: "hang them very slowly. Of course the death penalty will never be brought back because the bleeding hearts will never allow it to happen."
Of course there's often a difference between what people write online and how they'd deal with issues in person but the same process that makes someone kill over religious imagery causes people to feel incensed over other forms of media. We spend a lifetime developing positive or negative responses to things. There was a case of someone using twitter to attack the McCann family - the family whose child went missing after they left them at home while they went out:
[VIDEO]
This ended badly because that person who thought she had the freedom to say what she wanted was pushed into the spotlight by the media suggesting police were investigating her and she took her own life in a hotel room. There was another incident with a lorry crash that happened in the UK:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/glasgow-bin-lorry-tragedy-sick-4869716
"Ross Loraine wrote: “So a bin lorry has crashed into 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it’s ever picked up in one day that.”
The 19-year-old deleted his Twitter account minutes after posting his comment amid outrage from hundreds of social media users.
When the post went viral as other users made an effort to name and shame Loraine, of Sunderland, he gave himself up to police. He was arrested on suspicion of making a malicious communication and was bailed pending further inquiries."
If that comment had been said months or years later or not in reference to a particular event, it would have passed by unnoticed.
There was an article recently about how people are using encrypted web connections to maintain anonymity and freedom of speech but are using it to continue abuse hidden from the web that most people access (aka the clearnet):
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/31/dark-web-traffic-child-abuse-sites
There's an interesting video here about how it works:
[VIDEO]
What the abusers are doing is against the law but they disagree with the law. Laws change over time, back in the 60s/70s, this was legal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States
"In the United States, pornography is considered a form of personal expression governed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is obscene, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California."
Who determines what is and isn't obscene? The UK just passed a law banning the production of pornography containing previously ok material:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html
In Eastern countries, their laws have been written to cover a completely different society. People in these countries have been using the same encrypted services described above to bypass censorship laws because they disagree with the law.
The ideal scenario for radical Muslims would be to become a majority population in Western countries and vote to implement Sharia Law. How could Western democracy undo that except the same way they did in Egypt, which was militarily overthrowing the oppressive government. Is it still a democracy if you use military force to overthrow a majority vote in a democratic election that was in favor of oppression?
People are clearly afraid of this kind of scenario taking place:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/11/05/3589225/alabama-votes-to-ban-foreign-laws/
I think this is why some people hold onto religions because they are seen as unchanging in the face of ever-changing human laws and handed down by an unquestionable authority without realising that they are just really old and restrictive laws written by people like them and the only unquestionable authority is granted to them by the people who believe them.
Eventually we have to all come to the conclusion that we are the masters of our own domain and the rules we implement are by majority. The strength in Islam and Christianity has nothing to do with the minority of people who handed down the texts, it's in the huge numbers of people willing to believe what they say. A magician's magic is only magic to an audience willing to suspend their disbelief. Passive religions speak out against Islam but they're only processing a different text in exactly the same way they are and it's that process that's corrupt.
Other religions may not frequently harm people by murder any more but there are other ways to cause harm. You can deny contraception because it violates your belief system and promote the rise of AIDs and unwanted pregnancy, which in turn causes great harm. Christians condemn Islamic murder but in the same breath would happily say that those people will burn for all eternity in a fiery hell.
It's understandable why people are moderate towards religion because having an unquestionable and highly moral authority (even fictional) does result in good works that otherwise would be difficult to obtain. However, the thought process by which this is reached is far too dangerous. It relies on people denying rational thought. Social progress and peaceful existence can only come about through rational thought because as living organisms we change over time. Change requires dealing with scenarios that are new. Worryingly, the numbers of people who hold to any religion total in a majority of the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
Almost 6/7 billion. Most of whom get taught to find partners in their own faith, taught that anyone questioning their faith should be seen as an enemy, that it's important to raise their children with the same values.
But if people are taught that there is no unquestionable moral authority then some people will not acknowledge any human authority. Anders Breivik did this when he refused to acknowledge the authority of the court trying him for the murder of 77 people and severe injuries to others in Norway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
He was religiously motivated as a Christian protesting against the rise of Islam.
Control comes about through an authority existing and the people being controlled respecting it. People who follow religion are (without knowing it) respecting the authority of human beings who lived and wrote laws millennia ago. People who follow modern law are respecting the authority of more recent human beings who wrote them. Modern laws are far easier to invalidate because of the abundance of information about why the laws came about and the profiles of the people motivated to write them. This doesn't exist for ancient laws and so people respect them more but people need to understand that it's exactly the same setup and when people scrutinize modern law when it's in conflict of ancient or religious law, they are free to do the same in reverse.
Freedom of speech isn't meant to give people the right to offend others (meaning that offensive material is promoted) in the same way the right to own a weapon doesn't grant the right to commit violence. The goal is always peace. They give you a right to choose how to express yourself and to question everything and your choice will have reasonable consequences. To some Islamists, the consequences dealt out in the Hebdo case were reasonable to them. To people supporting 'Je suis charlie', they were wholly unreasonable consequences, even if they don't promote the same material. As hard as it is to do, reasonable people even in circumstances like this have to continue to lead by example and not retaliate with unreasonable consequences.
You've got a hangup over religion being all about authority and control. That might be the case with some religions, but not Christianity, which is the only one true religion. Indeed, the central tenet of Christianity is based on conceding control where appropriate: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
"Freedom of speech isn't meant to give people the right to offend others .... <>"
?This is, as Zappa would say, the "crux of the biscuit" : by your definition, you have freedom of speech, but you cannot exercise it.
The notion of "offense" is very vague. Charlie Hebdo was criticized for offending muslims, but they were equally offensive towards Christians and Jews. From self limitations to self limitations of your freedom, you end up with no freedom at all, and give up to your own values : this is submission .
(Note incidentally that "islam" means "submission" )
If people feel offended, in a democratic society, that have the right to raise the case to courts (according, as you pointed out, to local and ever changing legislations). Jews , Christians and muslims tried this again Charlie Hebdo (they mostly lost the cases).
As long as the local legislation is met, there is no place for a notion like "blasphemy" (and furthermore, a death penalty attached to it ...) in a democratic society.
"Charb" (one of the assassinated Charlie Hebdo guys) knew he was under mortal threat, but declared "I prefer die standing up rather than live lying down".
Complete and utter nonsense. Freedom of speech explicitly does not mean freedom from offense.
It's possible to live standing up, too.
It's possible to live standing up, too.
Charb would have preferred, yes ....
I guess that if he had chosen any other subject for his cartoons, he would still be alive today.
I guess that if he had chosen any other subject for his cartoons, he would still be alive today.
Alive, but lying down, because having capitulated against intolerance.