Turkey threatens legal, diplomatic action over Charlie Hebdo’s caricature of Erdogan

[Zaktar]

I can see that you apparently don't like the idea of the english language using more than one definition for many words, and are having a shitfit that someone used one of those definitions correctly.

You're also missing the point of the argument (and so are many other groups). Saying that someone provoked an action does not attribute blame for that action, especially when the retributive action is disproportionate to the provocation. The blame lies with the person who took those actions. Acknowledging that certain behaviors do cause people to display reactions to those behaviors isn't a bad thing. Using that acknowledgment against the person who exhibited those behaviors in contexts like these is (and often has been, especially in your example). The point of acknowledging the provocation in these instances identifies an action/reaction chain that needs to be broken. The initial behavior isn't the problem. The connection between the action/reaction is the problem and needs to be addressed with the reacting individuals. Rejecting the action/reaction chain in no way solves that problem. If you want to use the euphemism action/reaction chain instead of the word 'provoke' go right ahead.

You're trying to dance around the fact that saying "he provoked the murder" comes with the implication that the murder was justified. It's how the word is commonly used in English; the technical definition is relevant to my understanding that this wasn't your intention, but your intention is irrelevant to the message you're communicating. Which is that this murder was justified because it was "provoked."

[Bodonius]

There are, most of them get suppressed because free speech isn't a thing anymore.









This, its more along the lines of spitting in the face of someone and then insulting them, and expecting NOT to get punched in the face for it; sure someone could walk away, but in the spur of the moment its usually not going to happen.

Lots of people seem to forget what Hebdo intends with their artwork. Its not exactly satire or making political commentary for comedic effect, its downright malicious mockery.

In the case of the teacher being killed, I do not recall what his intent was, was he showing it to his class as an example of political commentary and how it affects societal tensions? Or was he simply showcasing it because he liked the message/imagery depicted and wanted his students to feel the same?

I dont know Hebdo, he isnt a personal friend of mine and I dont pretend that I know what his intentions where.
I better know Swedish simular actors and their intentions.
Still if some religious people cant even take a picture or insult without killing people they are horrible horrible people.

[Theodarzna]

You're trying to dance around the fact that saying "he provoked the murder" comes with the implication that the murder was justified. It's how the word is commonly used in English; the technical definition is relevant to my understanding that this wasn't your intention, but your intention is irrelevant to the message you're communicating. Which is that this murder was justified because it was "provoked."

It is also a weird claim, like does this idea of provocation "They were asking for it" apply in other contexts and why not exactly? I mean, provocation might seem valid but it seems the people claiming provocation are people are very selective in their acceptance of it.

[Ripster42]

Provoke rape dont meen its bad, ok... its not a bad thing that people then rape.The using sexy cloths isnt bad. The connection between getting raped and wearing sexy cloths is the problem. Rejecting that sexy cloths lead to rape dont slove the problem. Still, just say the problem is evil people that like raping or murdering with a lame excuse like a picture or sexy clothing would what a normal person would say.

It'd help if you just tried to read a bit more closely and/or not lie about what I said. The bolded is literally the opposite of what I said.

The person who commits the crime is still a bad person committing a crime. Acknowledging that the bad actor was triggered by a behavior in no way alleviates their guilt nor does it assign any blame to the person who did the provocation. It should, instead, make it clear that what should be considered an innocent act (wearing clothes or posting images) led someone to a heinous act. That whatever specific ideology they're working off of is not healthy/moral. It can lead you to correct specific things about that ideology that lead to heinous behaviors. Whether that ideology is "women were put on earth to please me" (or whatever it may be) or "murder is less heinous than blasphemy" both of those ideologies need changing. One is based on an inherently toxic ideology. The other needs a reorganization of its priorities.

- - - Updated - - -

You're trying to dance around the fact that saying "he provoked the murder" comes with the implication that the murder was justified. It's how the word is commonly used in English; the technical definition is relevant to my understanding that this wasn't your intention, but your intention is irrelevant to the message you're communicating. Which is that this murder was justified because it was "provoked."

Literally not. The word provoke does not inherently assign blame nor does it justify disproportionate actions. My first post in the thread:

Saying someone provoked an act doesn't mean the retributive action was proportional.

You can't really get more clear than that. In the instance of the OP the justified "retributive act" would be denouncing the teacher as blasphemous (and who cares about that). Not murder. In @Bodonius' the justified "retributive acts" would range from nothing to thinking they're attractive based on a range of variables. Not rape.

[Bodonius]

It'd help if you just tried to read a bit more closely and/or not lie about what I said. The bolded is literally the opposite of what I said.

The person who commits the crime is still a bad person committing a crime. Acknowledging that the bad actor was triggered by a behavior in no way alleviates their guilt nor does it assign any blame to the person who did the provocation. It should, instead, make it clear that what should be considered an innocent act (wearing clothes or posting images) led someone to a heinous act. That whatever specific ideology they're working off of is not healthy/moral. It can lead you to correct specific things about that ideology that lead to heinous behaviors. Whether that ideology is "women were put on earth to please me" (or whatever it may be) or "murder is less heinous than blasphemy" both of those ideologies need changing. One is based on an inherently toxic ideology. The other needs a reorganization of its priorities.

Then try to make your point clear and dont cover it in a wall of text.
Your saying that a criminal telling why he did it, dont make him innocent. I can tell I killed Trump because I ate a bad breakfast and thats a valid reason why i did it in my deranged mind. And same with rape and beheadings, thats all your really saying but complicated.

[Ripster42]

Then try to make your point clear and dont cover it in a wall of text.
Your saying that a criminal telling why he did it, dont make him innocent. I can tell I killed Trump because I ate a bad breakfast and thats a valid reason why i did it in my deranged mind. And same with rape and beheadings, thats all your really saying but complicated.

That was quite literally as clear as I can make it. The bolded is literally what I'm saying.

Edit: and seriously this comment is not a wall of text and is pretty clear:

Saying someone provoked an act doesn't mean the retributive action was proportional.

[Lothaeryn]

Still if some religious people cant even take a picture or insult without killing people they are horrible horrible people.

You'll have to remember that a lot of Islamic countries as they stand are theocratic nations, and most of them are indoctrinated by Wahabbist ideology from the Saudi's. Turkey WAS one of the few nations that had secular democracy, but egerdogan has pretty much killed it, along with anyone else who supported Kemalism. The rest are behind bars for obvious reasons.

if you want to break that cycle, you need to help them adjust to more secular views through education, brandishing their own religion like a cudgel and calling them monkeys for having it is a surefire way to incite violence. Without that step, the west will always see hostility in regards to islam.

[Bodonius]

That was quite literally as clear as I can make it. The bolded is literally what I'm saying.

Then say it in one sentence like I did. Even if you feel that your smart, making a point with a long long argument really dont make it clearer.

- - - Updated - - -

You'll have to remember that a lot of Islamic countries as they stand are theocratic nations, and most of them are indoctrinated by Wahabbist ideology from the Saudi's. Turkey WAS one of the few nations that had secular democracy, but egerdogan has pretty much killed it, along with anyone else who supported Kemalism. The rest are behind bars for obvious reasons.

if you want to break that cycle, you need to help them adjust to more secular views through education, brandishing their own religion like a cudgel and calling them monkeys for having it is a surefire way to incite violence. Without that step, the west will always see hostility in regards to islam.

At this point I really dont know what anyone can do. Iran was fine 50 years ago, how can you make religious fanatics not be religious fanatics. I really think it cant be done, we need to kick them out of western countries before they infest us as a virus.

[Ripster42]

Then say it in one sentence like I did. Even if you feel that your smart, making a point with a long long argument really dont make it clearer.

I did:

Saying someone provoked an act doesn't mean the retributive action was proportional.

[Santti]

...Is he trying to put himself on par with Muhammed, here?

[Bodonius]

I did:

Ok, then I was just upset that your still see it as fine to say provoke about killing for a picture or rape someone for her cloths.

[Adam Jensen]

Strong men are such pussies whenever anyone mocks them. Snowflakes.

I mean for christ sake, Erdogan is the leader of Turkey, does he really think a stupid french cartoon's gonna hurt him? Does Xi Jinping really think he'll lose control of China over a few Winnie the Pooh cartoons?

How do these delicate little flowers even find their way into dictatorial positions?

[Zaktar]

It'd help if you just tried to read a bit more closely and/or not lie about what I said. The bolded is literally the opposite of what I said.

The person who commits the crime is still a bad person committing a crime. Acknowledging that the bad actor was triggered by a behavior in no way alleviates their guilt nor does it assign any blame to the person who did the provocation. It should, instead, make it clear that what should be considered an innocent act (wearing clothes or posting images) led someone to a heinous act. That whatever specific ideology they're working off of is not healthy/moral. It can lead you to correct specific things about that ideology that lead to heinous behaviors. Whether that ideology is "women were put on earth to please me" (or whatever it may be) or "murder is less heinous than blasphemy" both of those ideologies need changing. One is based on an inherently toxic ideology. The other needs a reorganization of its priorities.

- - - Updated - - -



Literally not. The word provoke does not inherently assign blame nor does it justify disproportionate actions. My first post in the thread:



You can't really get more clear than that. In the instance of the OP the justified "retributive act" would be denouncing the teacher as blasphemous (and who cares about that). Not murder. In @Bodonius' the justified "retributive acts" would range from nothing to thinking they're attractive based on a range of variables. Not rape.

Once again trying to dance around it. Yes I understand you are deeply committed to the technical definition of the word provoke. This is the message you were supporting:

I mean, he quite clearly *did* provoke it.

Its ambiguously enough worded that it can mean precisely what I said - that the murder was justified by the provocation. That's what you're trying to defend by getting technical. To me that's the same kind of game that Trump supporters play with "Well what he meant was..."

[Lothaeryn]

At this point I really dont know what anyone can do. Iran was fine 50 years ago, how can you make religious fanatics not be religious fanatics. I really think it cant be done, we need to kick them out of western countries before they infest us as a virus.

That's the exact opposite of what you should do, that pretty much would affirm the west's desire for genocide, because that would be the only result of segregating societies like that. We don't need another dark age global war over religious reasons going on.

What the west needs to do, is encourage outreach and educational reform in those nations, or at least in their own nations without pushing the religious button as the issue. Education alone cures a lot of ignorance that stem's from Wahabbist indoctrination. Kindness goes a much further way in killing that hostility than outright bans.

Think of some of the programs people in the US have started to help people get out of the KKK, its a mindset that needs to be conditioned out slowly, you can't rip a bandaid off after closing the wound and expect it not to bleed.

Also, calling muslims a 'virus' is the exact issue here, denigrating someone for their faith is never going to help reduce tensions. You already have insulted them before you even met them, what reason would they have to discuss anything with you at that point?

Western exceptionalism and white savior ideologues need to go if you want peace in the middle east and the west.

[Theodarzna]

That's the exact opposite of what you should do, that pretty much would affirm the west's desire for genocide, because that would be the only result of segregating societies like that. We don't need another dark age global war over religious reasons going on.

What the west needs to do, is encourage outreach and educational reform in those nations, or at least in their own nations without pushing the religious button as the issue. Education alone cures a lot of ignorance that stem's from Wahabbist indoctrination. Kindness goes a much further way in killing that hostility than outright bans.

Think of some of the programs people in the US have started to help people get out of the KKK, its a mindset that needs to be conditioned out slowly, you can't rip a bandaid off after closing the wound and expect it not to bleed.

Also, calling muslims a 'virus' is the exact issue here, denigrating someone for their faith is never going to help reduce tensions. You already have insulted them before you even met them, what reason would they have to discuss anything with you at that point?

Western exceptionalism and white savior ideologues need to go if you want peace in the middle east and the west.

How is your proposal not Western Exceptionalism and Savior Ideology? I mean one way or another you are asking to combat the beliefs of a region and make them more amenable to your own.

[Ripster42]

Its ambiguously enough worded that it can mean precisely what I said - that the murder was justified by the provocation. That's what you're trying to defend by getting technical. To me that's the same kind of game that Trump supporters play with "Well what he meant was..."

Only if you're dead set on being offended do you take it that way.

[Bodonius]

That's the exact opposite of what you should do, that pretty much would affirm the west's desire for genocide, because that would be the only result of segregating societies like that. We don't need another dark age global war over religious reasons going on.

What the west needs to do, is encourage outreach and educational reform in those nations, or at least in their own nations without pushing the religious button as the issue. Education alone cures a lot of ignorance that stem's from Wahabbist indoctrination. Kindness goes a much further way in killing that hostility than outright bans.

Think of some of the programs people in the US have started to help people get out of the KKK, its a mindset that needs to be conditioned out slowly, you can't rip a bandaid off after closing the wound and expect it not to bleed.

Also, calling muslims a 'virus' is the exact issue here, denigrating someone for their faith is never going to help reduce tensions. You already have insulted them before you even met them, what reason would they have to discuss anything with you at that point?

Western exceptionalism and white savior ideologues need to go if you want peace in the middle east and the west.

According to islam, they want to kill all none belivers and they are sincere.
Western world have tried to do their best extream muslims dont want that, they want to be with allah and have their culture wherever they move.
The issue here is that extream muslims are killing, raping and robbing people and dont want to integrate. If they where like any other religion there wouldnt be a problem at all.

[Lothaeryn]

How is your proposal not Western Exceptionalism and Savior Ideology? I mean one way or another you are asking to combat the beliefs of a region and make them more amenable to your own.

because its not coming from a space of superiority, its coming from a place of respect for the person you are trying to convince of a different avenue of thought.

You can sit here are and argue the pedancies of the method as much as you want, but its not going to fix anything until work gets done to ease tensions first. Cause i can sure as fuck tell you whatever the west has been doing so far acting high and mighty isn't working.

[Zaktar]

because its not coming from a space of superiority, its coming from a place of respect for the person you are trying to convince of a different avenue of thought.

You can sit here are and argue the pedancies of the method as much as you want, but its not going to fix anything until work gets done to ease tensions first. Cause i can sure as fuck tell you whatever the west has been doing so far acting high and mighty isn't working.

Appeasement doesn't work.

[Lothaeryn]

According to islam, they want to kill all none belivers and they are sincere.
Western world have tried to do their best extream muslims dont want that, they want to be with allah and have their culture wherever they move.
The issue here is that extream muslims are killing, raping and robbing people and dont want to integrate. If they where like any other religion there wouldnt be a problem at all.

And those idiots are extremists, I'm not talking about ISIS members being educated here, those folks are generally not going to be changed most of the time. But outright showing hostility to the rest when they havent done anything to warrant it is not going to fix the issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Appeasement doesn't work.

and sitting in an echo chamber claiming superiority won't work either.