|
Cingulate posted:The french actions against (perceived) verbal antisemitism after the attacks seemed very tone-deaf and stupid to me. The argument I'm making here is I would say a rather subtle one, and probably very hard to understand when you're currently angry because somebody of your background shot somebody making fun of your religion and got shot in turn, and even you yourself are a peaceful man, somebody just blew up your mosque out of "revenge" for the shootings of the cartoonists, and you're supposed to celebrate the freedom of others to insult your religion now, and then somebody else, someone of your background, makes fun of another, different religion and suddenly THEY get thrown in jail. If you like subtlety in argument, consider this one: there is a difference between making fun of a religion and making fun of all the people who are perceived as being followers of this religion. For instance: imagine a cartoon showing Moses crying over his ten commandments tablet, saying "they really didn't get the spirit of the law" with a caption explaining that it's about the latest fuckery committed by ultra-orthodoxes in Israel. Then imagine another cartoon representing an especially ugly and sinister-looking Arab, sucking like a vampire the blood of a fair German maiden, with a caption explaining that the country will only be safe once the subhuman threat has been eradicated. Now compare these two cartoons. Are they equally offensive? Is one of them a potential cause of threats against the life and livelihood of people? What about the other?
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:If anybody has any other examples of an industrialized genocide like the Holocaust, please post them as they are unknown to history. The Hottentots say "hi". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 19:18
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The Hottentots say "hi". I mean, if you really, really want to get down to the sheer level of inhumanity necessary to discuss these things, the Germans eventually stopped murdering the Hereros on their own initiative, which plainly was not going to happen with the Shoah.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
I have some distant family members who were prosecuted under the Porajmos and even they recognize that what was done to them was not comparable to the Holocaust. There was actually some debate to the Gypsy Question (Himmler wanted 'pure' Gypsies, who were of Aryan descent, to be removed to an ethnic reservation outside modern civilization until he was overruled) The Jewish Question had a very definitive answer: Not in any society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Destroying entire groups of people was the default for a lot of history. poo poo, it's one of the oldest stories in the bible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Every thing that has ever happened is unique, the holocaust had certain unique properties but so did the massacre of the congolese people by Leopold II, arguing which event was more unique is not tantamount to arguing which was worse despite all ADL discourse that tries to argue to this effect. It makes no sense whatsoever to criminalize holocaust denial without criminalizing the denial of the Armenian holocaust or any numerous similar past atrocities, might as well make lying a criminal activity altogether if you want to go down this route. Perhaps there are some sensible limitations to free speech but I fail to see how holocaust denial is specifically 'illegal speech', and the 'uniquness' of the holocaust certainly isn't pertinent in this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If anybody has any other examples of an industrialized genocide like the Holocaust, please post them as they are unknown to history. Ddraig posted:There are none. The Holocaust is unique in the sense that it was the first and only industrial slaughter of an entire people. There is literally nothing comparable in history Why is the industrial part so important? Every genocide is unique and beautiful in it's own special way. I don't understand the point of setting one aside as the uniquest of all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Just as holocaust denial reveals an anti-semitic agenda, so too do pushers of the uniqueness doctrine reveal a pro-zionist agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 21:44
|
|
B-but it's so hard being white! Waaaaaagh!
|
boom boom boom posted:Why is the industrial part so important? Every genocide is unique and beautiful in it's own special way. I don't understand the point of setting one aside as the uniquest of all. 'Unique' in the holocaust context is just code word for 'important', obviously you can't claim that it's neccesary for holocaust denial to be criminal merely cause the holocaust is 'important', cause that is a subjective evaluation and many cultures could easily claim that they view certain events as important and that it should be therefore illegal to deny they happened, question their validity or even present them in a mocking manner... for instance Muslim communities could claim that depictions of Muhammad are simply taboo but let's not digress. So they look for objective properties that might justify treating the holocaust in such a manner and that's where uniqueness pops up cause you could certain argue that the holocaust is a unique event but just as you've said every genocide is unique and even if the holocaust is the one genocide most dissmilar from all other geocides it still wouldn't be relevant in any way. Arguing for the singularly uniquness of the holocaust is pretty common in pro-Israeli works that deal with the subject, Finkelstein adresses this in 'The Holocaust Industry' where he notes that a few writers have really taken upon themselves the task of proving that the holocaust is the most unique and special event in history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:We wouldn't want SA to be sued in France, would we? Counterpoint: the American free speech model is a cultural byproduct of America, a (relatively) tolerant liberal democracy where free speech happened to (mostly) be used for good and where organized violence against minorities is (mostly) a historical relic. Free speech is easy to champion in America because the free speech of bigots in America has not been truly dangerous since the civil rights era and even then the bigots thoroughly lost. I am not at all convinced that Rwanda should not immediately imprison a Hutu who dispassionately states that the Tutsi are subhuman scum "but I don't condone violence wink wink". That directly depends on societal circumstances. The French and Germans can make up their own minds about how much denial still matters, but I don't think anyone should be criticized for taking either side. e: to be clear, I don't think Holocaust denial laws have a place in America and liberal democracies that do have such laws should extend them to all genocides. Adar fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Adar posted:Counterpoint: the American free speech model is a cultural byproduct of America, a (relatively) tolerant liberal democracy where free speech happened to (mostly) be used for good and where organized violence against minorities is (mostly) a historical relic. Free speech is easy to champion in America because the free speech of bigots in America has not been truly dangerous since the civil rights era and even then the bigots thoroughly lost. That is entirely incorrect. Free speech has been used for horrible ends in this country. Just look at the kind of spiteful anti-Chinese bullshit that was promulgated in California, around the Chinese Exclusion Act and such. And nevertheless having protection of the press in the First Amendment of the Constitution was used for good, and now it seems vindicated. One could equally argue that it is the very fact that European reaction to bad ideologies was to limit their speech that created untenable mechanisms which are now being rightfully excoriated as hypocritical, while since there hasn't been an ongoing tradition of openly debating bigots and racists means that they're "progress" is ephemeral and lacking in foundation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Ah, now we have the procession of the inquisitors, ever-probing, as eager to find subtext as a Freudian with Netflix. Unfortunately, an embarrassing hole remains in the rhetoric. If we consider the Holocaust as a natural outgrowth of Nazi ideology, the millions of Soviet Gentiles and POWs murdered become victims as well and the Jewish dead no longer a majority. We also have the issue, not that a vulgar materialist would grasp this, that the Holocaust triggered a disillusionment with modernity, unlike the majority of examples. We could argue about the reasons why, but I doubt anyone with the reflexive desires on display here would want to.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Ah, now we have the procession of the inquisitors, ever-probing, as eager to find subtext as a Freudian with Netflix. Unfortunately, an embarrassing hole remains in the rhetoric. If we consider the Holocaust as a natural outgrowth of Nazi ideology, the millions of Soviet Gentiles and POWs murdered become victims as well and the Jewish dead no longer a majority. We also have the issue, not that a vulgar materialist would grasp this, that the Holocaust triggered a disillusionment with modernity, unlike the majority of examples. We could argue about the reasons why, but I doubt anyone with the reflexive desires on display here would want to. Are you quoting something or mocking something or just being weird?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 23:05
|
|
boom boom boom posted:Are you quoting something or mocking something or just being weird? I was brought up to consider accusing someone of being a little Dershowitz to be a mortal insult. I also have a real disdain for the notion of intellectual contamination all too many leftists subscribe to.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I was brought up to consider accusing someone of being a little Dershowitz to be a mortal insult. I also have a real disdain for the notion of intellectual contamination all too many leftists subscribe to. So, all three then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with anti-denial laws, it's an insanely clear historical fact and the denial of it clearly displays an anti-semitic agenda. It's just it exposes why the "We must defend any speech, no matter how bad, and if you're offended by it just suck it up!" argument that was going around for a week or so after the attack is not a good one. The laws against "defending terrorism" seem far worse to me, considering how broadly they've been interpreted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:I don't have a problem with anti-denial laws, it's an insanely clear historical fact and the denial of it clearly displays an anti-semitic agenda. It's just it exposes why the "We must defend any speech, no matter how bad, and if you're offended by it just suck it up!" argument that was going around for a week or so after the attack is not a good one. No, that's the actual point though, it's a good argument and should make Europeans question their very uneven and inequitable limitations on speech. And it wasn't a matter of "suck it up", it was a matter of "stop victim-blaming you turd".
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Adar posted:e: to be clear, I don't think Holocaust denial laws have a place in America and liberal democracies that do have such laws should extend them to all genocides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I was brought up to consider accusing someone of being a little Dershowitz to be a mortal insult. I also have a real disdain for the notion of intellectual contamination all too many leftists subscribe to. Personally I didn't mean to imply that you personally were a Dersh, it's just not the first time I've had this particular discussion living amongst Jews and all. I simply do not believe that the importance of the holocaust (and it is definitely a defining event in the history of the west in particular and the 20th century in general) justifies legislation that criminalizes lying about it and I think I provided decent arguments as to why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That is entirely incorrect. Free speech has been used for horrible ends in this country. Just look at the kind of spiteful anti-Chinese bullshit that was promulgated in California, around the Chinese Exclusion Act and such. And nevertheless having protection of the press in the First Amendment of the Constitution was used for good, and now it seems vindicated. One could equally argue that it is the very fact that European reaction to bad ideologies was to limit their speech that created untenable mechanisms which are now being rightfully excoriated as hypocritical, while since there hasn't been an ongoing tradition of openly debating bigots and racists means that they're "progress" is ephemeral and lacking in foundation. Don't be pedantic please. How many disclaimers in a post does it take to stop D&D from doing that? The national mythos of the US includes that free speech is a near absolute good. This has mostly been borne out by the parts of history the average American is at least dimly aware of, which in turn means the national attitude towards crazy bigots is that they and their words cannot be dangerous because all the bad stuff happens Over There and we have a black president anyway sooooo. This in turn disarms the bigots and becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. That is just not true in Rwanda, where enforced hate speech laws would've had a good chance of preventing or delaying (which would have let a lot more people escape) the genocide at the very start. I don't know if they have a place now but it would be extremely presumptuous of anyone without a much better grasp of Rwandan history than I to say they don't. Europe is clearly on that spectrum and some countries are clearly dealing with their history better than others, so I'm not going to pretend that either opinion is wrong. It depends on the circumstances of each country and those of the strong believers on each side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Personally I didn't mean to imply that you personally were a Dersh, it's just not the first time I've had this particular discussion living amongst Jews and all. But holocaust deniers don't generally believe they are lying. That said, criminalizing lying doesn't sound like that bad of an idea to me. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:That said, criminalizing lying doesn't sound like that bad of an idea to me. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" This leads to problems in criminal courts. You can't be forced to tell the truth when you're being accused.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:But holocaust deniers don't generally believe they are lying. Not bearing false witness is different than merely lying, regardless both quickly become very difficult to ascertain and are thus very shaky foundations for actual criminal laws. I is impertant whether they believe they are lying or not really, the base assumption of this discussion is that due to the 'unquestionable' nature of the historical records from the holocaust top-level holocaust denying scholars must be lying and spreading false information intentionally, this can be not the case only if holocaust denial accusation encompass questioning specific facts about the holocaust without denying the whole thing, something which people have been prosecuted for before which only further makes this whole law laughable, as I said, this simply boils down to criminalizing lies and if you do that you either criminalize all lies or you've promoting a specific agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Not bearing false witness is different than merely lying, regardless both quickly become very difficult to ascertain and are thus very shaky foundations for actual criminal laws. I think it's relevant whether or not a person believes they are telling the truth. There's nothing malicious in telling the truth as you see it, it's actually a righteous act and it would be wrong to criminalize that. If it can be reasonably well proven that someone has told an intentional lie for some malicious purpose, though, that should definitely be criminal. And in many cases, it is today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:But holocaust deniers don't generally believe they are lying. Using biblical "law" as the basis for actual law is dangerous. Don't eat pork. Don't jerk off. Don't mix threads in your garments. Don't have sex before marriage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:48
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I think it's relevant whether or not a person believes they are telling the truth. There's nothing malicious in telling the truth as you see it, it's actually a righteous act and it would be wrong to criminalize that. If it can be reasonably well proven that someone has told an intentional lie for some malicious purpose, though, that should definitely be criminal. And in many cases, it is today. So if someone genuinely believes that the holocaust never happened they should be able to say so? same for "jews did 9/11" I presume? How do you even start to prosecute people for malicious lies if you add a caveat of "speaking their mind"? It's true that libel and slander laws make it possible to prosecute individuals for lying under certain scenarios, those in fact do not concern themselves with whether the accused lied intentionally or not, you cannot determines someone's true intentions anyway so this is really a very shaky premise. Ultimately (if I didn't already make this clear), I believe that free speech laws should under no circumstance be limited through making certain topics taboo, I'm mostly ok with laws criminalizing incitement under certain conditions but this "Holocaust denial leads to antisemitism which leads to antisemitic crimes" chain of causality does not seem uniquely relevant to me in a manner that neccesitates the criminalization of holocaust denial, if anything it seems to me like the criminalization of holocaust denial further fuels antisemitic attitudes among those people who'd seek to deny the holocaust in the first place and thus this entire thing is nonsensical. Let people lie, let the historical records show them to be liars, who cares.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Neither did many Germans, until about three weeks ago All German humor ends this Thursday, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:This leads to problems in criminal courts. You can't be forced to tell the truth when you're being accused. I know in the Finnish judicial system the defendant is under no obligation to help convict himself, which is why he can make up any story he likes. But it's my understanding that, for instance, in the United States even the defendant can be prosecuted for perjury.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 13:21
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Personally I didn't mean to imply that you personally were a Dersh, it's just not the first time I've had this particular discussion living amongst Jews and all. I mean, I know that's not how Germany justifies its laws and I suspect that everywhere in Western Europe that does so uses the same justification- the laws exist as a means to crush neo-Nazism before it can get too strong. They've arguably failed, and so I don't support implementing them, but their theoretical justification is very different from just "don't lie about genocides".
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Adar posted:Don't be pedantic please. How many disclaimers in a post does it take to stop D&D from doing that? The Rwandan example is completely inapplicable. If Europe was in a position towards Jews that is like that just before the Rwandan massacre then no limitations on speech would do. There was a complete collapse of law and order, so those laws would not matter. Since if anything Europe is much closer (as much as you can be in countries with functioning democratic and law-enforcement apparati) to that towards non-Jewish immigrants (just look at the widespread violence against Muslims after the CH-related incidents), if anything the appropriate legal response would be to drop the anti-Holocaust-denial/anti-semitism laws and enact steep anti-Islamophobia laws. I don't accept that logic. Why do you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I mean, I know that's not how Germany justifies its laws and I suspect that everywhere in Western Europe that does so uses the same justification- the laws exist as a means to crush neo-Nazism before it can get too strong. They've arguably failed, and so I don't support implementing them, but their theoretical justification is very different from just "don't lie about genocides". It's seems to me that whatever rationale led to this legislation originally no longer applies for a variety of reasons, and in the first place limiting free speech on one particular topic to crush one specific political movement is already iffy enough, you could just criminalize nazi ideology if that's the end-game here (not that that would work either), what we're left with right now are laws that amount to nothing more than "you are not allowed to lie about this one particular genocide" and these, in my opinion, need to be flushed down the toilet ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
It seems to me that all of these discussions about the theoretical justifications for the current legal status of holocaust denial as opposed to other forms of speech. But the creation of laws is not motivated so much by philosophical arguments as it is by popular demand and/or the agenda of parties or legislatures. In this case, I would take the cynical perspective that anti-holocaust denial speech codes are primarily to protect Germany/France/etc.'s international image. Nobody wants to have a vocal neo-nazi movement hung around their necks in the press. Plus, of course, as a recognition of popular anti-Nazi sentiment in the postwar period. But, the anti-Charlie Hebdo editorials (and posters) have now broadly decided to use these anti-semitic speech codes as a rhetorical shield to allow them to criticize the murdered cartoonists with impunity (often by calling them "white" 10 times or so per paragraph, strangely enough). By making tactical use of these speech codes, they have effectively de-sacralized them like soldiers occupying a church. If European artists, writers and intellectuals have to tear down these limitations on speech in order to effectively criticize Islamism or traditional arab culture or whatever you want to call it, then they will, and some grandstanding bullshit like Netanyahu inviting French Jews to Israel isn't going to change that. Once again, the impact on muslim discourse and culture is the elephant in the room here, since 80% of the discussion has been about the attitudes and reactions of Europeans rather than the culture that broadly supports violent punishment of "blasphemers". Here goes the "kulturkampf"  again I suppose, but there seems to be an avoidance of the argument that crude caricature of sacred images genuinely does chip away at the values of traditional societies (which, by my way of thinking, is why it's such a noble calling). What makes an image sacred is not any deeply philosophical creed, but force of habit - and state compulsion and social pressure is the indispensable buttress to a "sacred" idea or image. When this compulsion and pressure is publicly and deliberately flaunted, the aura of sanctity is weakened. Bit by bit, all but the most dedicated believers have their sense of outrage gradually worn away, and a more modern, open-minded culture is the result. Most of the anti-Charlie posters seem to fixate on the argument that intentionally offending people of other cultural groups will always lead to more negative outcomes because it crowds out "real dialogue", whatever that is, and causes populations to take sides instead of looking for commonalities. I don't think that is self-evident.So yes, in some sense, the artists and editors at Charlie Hebdo did intentionally make themselves targets to Islamic fundamentalists. They also took care to position themselves as equal-opportunity offenders, including mocking the arguments of other critics of Islam. They positioned themselves on a volatile cultural fault line and dared the traditionalists to take a shot at them. The latter did, and now they are going to reap the consequences. It's only been weeks, and already we've had the leader of the most populous arab state directly criticizing the backwards tendencies of Islam as a whole. The massacre created the rhetorical space for him to do so, even if he felt obliged to offer some criticism of the cartoons at the same time. More and more Islamic leaders, as well as common citizens, are starting to feel the need to apologize for their religion and culture - which is good, because that religion has a LOT to apologize for and a lot of fundamental changes it needs to make. So, yes, the writers of Charlie Hebdo absolutely have made the world a better place with their work, and I don't think praising them as martyrs is going too far. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:So yes, in some sense, the artists and editors at Charlie Hebdo did intentionally make themselves targets to Islamic fundamentalists. They also took care to position themselves as equal-opportunity offenders, including mocking the arguments of other critics of Islam. They positioned themselves on a volatile cultural fault line and dared the traditionalists to take a shot at them. The latter did, and now they are going to reap the consequences. It's only been weeks, and already we've had the leader of the most populous arab state directly criticizing the backwards tendencies of Islam as a whole. The massacre created the rhetorical space for him to do so, even if he felt obliged to offer some criticism of the cartoons at the same time. More and more Islamic leaders, as well as common citizens, are starting to feel the need to apologize for their religion and culture - which is good, because that religion has a LOT to apologize for and a lot of fundamental changes it needs to make. So, yes, the writers of Charlie Hebdo absolutely have made the world a better place with their work, and I don't think praising them as martyrs is going too far. That criticism has been going on in the Muslim world the whole time; you just started paying attention to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That criticism has been going on in the Muslim world the whole time; you just started paying attention to it. Has it been coming from national leaders?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Has it been coming from national leaders? Yes, it has.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Has it been coming from national leaders? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=muslim+leaders+condemn+charlie+hebdo+violence i feel like you're going to weasel out of it with 'national leaders' but i don't recall that many leaders of european nations speaking up on behalf of christianity when bad things happen
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 12:26
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:It seems to me that all of these discussions about the theoretical justifications for the current legal status of holocaust denial as opposed to other forms of speech. But the creation of laws is not motivated so much by philosophical arguments as it is by popular demand and/or the agenda of parties or legislatures. In this case, I would take the cynical perspective that anti-holocaust denial speech codes are primarily to protect Germany/France/etc.'s international image. Nobody wants to have a vocal neo-nazi movement hung around their necks in the press. Plus, of course, as a recognition of popular anti-Nazi sentiment in the postwar period. Or it could be an attempt to clamp down on large neo-nazi movements whose antecedents had usurped or overthrown your state? 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=muslim+leaders+condemn+charlie+hebdo+violence
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:To play devil's advocate, it would probably make sense to expect more from national leaders of countries with a state religion than those without, since it's kinda sending the wrong message if the leader of a secular state stands up and represents for example Catholicism in an official capacity. Expecting people to speak up for anything but their own major denomination doesn't make much sense though, whether Muslim or Christian (or anyone else for that matter), since people have been killing each other for centuries over doctrinal differences. I think the 30 Years War for example is a pretty definitive way of saying that the views of the Catholic Church do not represent those of the Protestant faiths. But according to Catholics national leaders shouldn't be representative of the Catholic Church either, that would be the clergy and/or the Pope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
computer parts posted:But according to Catholics national leaders shouldn't be representative of the Catholic Church either, that would be the clergy and/or the Pope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 16:19
|
|